Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Totally agree BFTV, but the quality of the research wasn't that good and was later dropped by the IPCC on receding glaciers. One small point would you take that stance if the quality of research was conducted by a sceptical scientist?

 

Why not attempt to read articles that attempt to appraise both sides without bias. Difficult I know. I've normally found this site not bad and this article is pretty fair IMO.

 

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-sea-ice-levels-are-above-long-term-average-as-the-antarctic-posts-another-record.html

Edited November 30, 2013 by knocker

[UV-RAY]

Why not attempt to read articles that attempt to appraise both sides without bias. Difficult I know. I've normally found this site not bad and this article is pretty fair IMO. http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-sea-ice-levels-are-above-long-term-average-as-the-antarctic-posts-another-record.html

Im talking about the WWF and Hymalyan glaciers?

[knocker]

Im talking about the WWF and Hymalyan glaciers?

 

I humbly apologise. Here is the info. Assuming we are talking about Himalayan glaciers.

 

 

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/ipcc-admits-himalayan-glacier-error

Edited November 30, 2013 by knocker

[stewfox]

Well, what does Nigel Lawson know about science, for God's sake...He's an economist!

 

Might as well ask an ironmonger to cure non-Hodgekins Lymphoma? 

 

He has spent 25 years studying the subject and written several well received books on the subject. Now I appreciate he doesnt wear green wellington boots, stands in a field and measures things , but he is more then qualified.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/An-Appeal-Reason-Global-Warming/dp/0715638416

Edited November 30, 2013 by stewfox

[stewfox]

I'll dig some out tomorrow, they were regarding some Glaciers in the Himalayas that would have disappeared by 2035. It was well documented at the time and not just by sceptical sites as one of the researchers admitted that the statement was intended purely as a shock tactic, hence why the IPCC dropped it like a stone and rightly so

 

IPCC apologised it was in the 2007 report

 

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/01/ipcc_apologises_for_himalayan.html

 

 

Took the figure from the WWF should have asked Nigel Lawson

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2013 by stewfox

[knocker]

He has spent 25 years studying the subject and written several well received books on the subject. Now I appreciate he doesnt wear green wellington boots, stands in a field and measures things , but he is more then qualified.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/An-Appeal-Reason-Global-Warming/dp/0715638416

 

I think the list of authors in "customers who bought this item also bought" quite informative. I know he wrote one book that was well received in certain circles but I'm not aware of the others. Have I missed out on a good read?

 

A quick look at Carter's book.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-alternate-reality.html

Edited November 30, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

4yrs running constant records are tumbling across the Northern hemisphere there"s constant evidence of cooling taking place ,also Arctic been cooling since 1998 http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-paper-finds-warming-has-also-paused.html.

 

Anyone care to comment on just how misleading this appears to be? Are all the temp records we see posted each year bogus or is the above bogus? Didn't we see another swathe of 'important' ( those in areas we least need to see max temp records broken?) Max temp records fall this past summer or did I just dream them up? Did we not set a new Greenland highest? Was Alaska not in meltdown ( and also through Autumn?) and what of the north of Europe? or Russia? 

 

Yes, let's note the increased extremes in climate we see lately but let's not attempt to mislead folk with cherry picked data eh? After all, the truth will out and if we've tried to mislead folk 'knowingly' then folk will think worse of us?

[knocker]

I don't think it's even cherry picked. "across the Northern hemisphere there"s constant evidence of cooling taking place" is an attempt to be deliberately misleading. It can't be cherry picked because nothing has been picked. 

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/science/the-choice-may-be-global-warming-or-a-new-ice-age-say-scientists?#page2

 

I think I've discovered their 'way out'?

 

When the $he=ite finally hits the fan they can say "Better this than an ice age......"

[4wd]

Paper looks legit
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/11209/2013/acp-13-11209-2013.html

Restricting the analysis to the 1998–2011 period, however, all the reanalyses show a cooling trend in the Arctic-mean 500 hPa temperature in autumn, and this also applies to both observations and the reanalyses when restricting the analysis to the locations with available IGRA radiosoundings. During this period, the surface observations mainly representing land areas surrounding the Arctic Ocean reveal no summertime trend, in contrast with the reanalyses whether restricted to the locations of the available surface observations or not. 

Edited November 30, 2013 by 4wd

[knocker]

While ocean acidification is a big problem for marine life and humans, there are things we can all do to slow the rate of change.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHG1syCxPLM#t=95

[Methuselah]

He has spent 25 years studying the subject and written several well received books on the subject. Now I appreciate he doesnt wear green wellington boots, stands in a field and measures things , but he is more then qualified.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/An-Appeal-Reason-Global-Warming/dp/0715638416

25 years' bending the science so that it might fit into his economic model?

[BornFromTheVoid]

He has spent 25 years studying the subject and written several well received books on the subject. Now I appreciate he doesnt wear green wellington boots, stands in a field and measures things , but he is more then qualified.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/An-Appeal-Reason-Global-Warming/dp/0715638416

 

Writing a book in order to byass peer review now makes someone qualified? Does that include Monkton? 

[Methuselah]

Or even - perish the thought - Al Gore!

[knocker]

Believe it or not that was a set book on my degree course. I managed to get by without reading it.

[knocker]

Montford, who just happens to belong to the GWPF, has written four books and of course his old friend McIntyre is involved.

 

Tamino on one of them.

 

The Montford Delusion

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

Edited December 1, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

Believe it or not that was a set book on my degree course. I managed to get by without reading it.

When I did mine, it was the very first IPCC report! 

[Gray-Wolf]

And mine was the hubbub around the agreements being forged at Rio in 92!

 

The dismay, of many of my then colleagues, at what was being expected of the world for what they perceived were the 'threats' set the scene ( for me) for the next 2 decades 

[knocker]

I was steeped in Rio as well GW.

[Methuselah]

Do you think guys that - having actually studied the subject - we are in the minority?

[knocker]

I really don't know. You can get a false impression from forums but from the latest polls I get the impression the tide may be swinging a bit in the States.

 

Over here of course the cost of green policies is quite a potent weapon given how so many are struggling with energy costs. taken in isolation this tends to ignore the underlying malaise. This is that we haven't had a coherent energy policy for thirty years and relied on the dash for gas much of which is imported. So coal fired power stations can't be replaced even if we wanted too as there is no coal industry. There has been no nuclear plan for years and now it's too late. Even renewables have suffered. Investment in tidal power has been virtually non existent and instead we have been building windmills although even here the planned Atlantic Array has collapsed. Result we are left with huge hikes in energy prices and about 4% spare capacity which is far too low.

 

So I think green investment really only plays a small part in this fiasco and this doesn't alter the science. We can safely leave it to successive governments to create the shambles. And I might add Lawson played his part in that.

[Gray-Wolf]

Paper looks legit

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/11209/2013/acp-13-11209-2013.html

Restricting the analysis to the 1998–2011 period, however, all the reanalyses show a cooling trend in the Arctic-mean 500 hPa temperature in autumn, and this also applies to both observations and the reanalyses when restricting the analysis to the locations with available IGRA radiosoundings. During this period, the surface observations mainly representing land areas surrounding the Arctic Ocean reveal no summertime trend, in contrast with the reanalyses whether restricted to the locations of the available surface observations or not. 

 

Do we not expect to see this type of inversion over the (Ant) Arctic in winter where we lack solar at ground level? Is there also some to link the properties of GHG's at height ( esp. when we look at methane concentrations at height over recent winters?) and the way they re-radiate into space. I'm sure I've read through stuff addressing such I just can't remember enough to post with confidence?

 

I think we need someone more schooled in the Physics to explain what we ought expect from the atmosphere over the poles during the long sunless winter? 

 

EDIT: Just imagine where we would be today if we had the concerted efforts of the misleaders on top of the general ignorance we saw back in the Early 90's??? Back then the notion of losing Arctic sea ice cover was certainly something relegated to the 'extreme potty profs' sphere or the 'Far distant Future' after centuries of warming ( even with the data we were getting for Fram losses then trickling in?). The guys from the other thread would have had a field day with some of the 'whacked out' ideas we were hearing about? Species losses, ocean acidification and ice loss ( nobody expected any issue from the East Siberian Ice shelf back then as it was too well insulated by the permanent ice cover above), global 'tipping points' and increased extreme weather events across the planet.....  

Edited December 1, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

I was going to post this press release but WUWT and HotWhopper have beat me to it. Probably a good thing as it's more interesting. A very good video and well worth watching. Which is more than I can say about the camp followers. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

 

From the WUWT commentsAfter all that wonderful science I hesitate to refer to the dark, dismal world of anti-science disinformation and denial. I'll not be deterred though.  If only one person can see the contrast between people who disdain science and real science done by real scientists in remote and dangerous parts of the world.  If just one person changes their mind and can see just how wretched are WUWT and its silly fans, then it will be worth it.The comments at WUWT generally complied with Anthony Watts' intentions.  Most of them haven't bothered to read the article properly or try to understand the research. They are like Pavlov's dogs, responding automatically to WUWT stimuli.

 

Anyway:

 

The sound of ice doesn't register at WUWT

[Interitus]

Paper looks legit

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/11209/2013/acp-13-11209-2013.html

Restricting the analysis to the 1998–2011 period, however, all the reanalyses show a cooling trend in the Arctic-mean 500 hPa temperature in autumn, and this also applies to both observations and the reanalyses when restricting the analysis to the locations with available IGRA radiosoundings. During this period, the surface observations mainly representing land areas surrounding the Arctic Ocean reveal no summertime trend, in contrast with the reanalyses whether restricted to the locations of the available surface observations or not. 

 

Interesting paper, but is your emphasis of part of the abstract to make a particular point?

 

Getting into the meat of the paper it examines differences between the reanalyses and observations rather than focusing on climatic trends.

Ignoring the reanalyses, figure 9 just looks at observational data between 1998-2011 and while there are seasonal variations at the different levels, it is an overwhelmingly warming picture -

 

[knocker]

A talk by Stephen Schneider PhD shortly before his death. Worth another look I feel.

 

He reviews the scientific process and systems science, and speaks to the issues of educating the public, risk assessment and value judgements.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_eJdX6y4hM#t=371