Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[mikeworst]

 

Edited December 2, 2013 by mikeworst

[mikeworst]

 

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.

 

 

Anyway:

 

The sound of ice doesn't register at WUWT

 

Don't cry, listen.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZfLIzTOGWM

 

[knocker]

For the life of me I can't remember if this has been posted already. I have a feeling I posted it. Still never mind Anthony might have missed it.

 

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&feature=youtu.be

[knocker]

For First Time in 20 Years, Cold Records May Beat Warm

 

With a large chunk of the U.S. having endured one of the coldest Thanksgiving holidays in years and even more brutally cold weather in the forecast over the next few days, 2013 is poised to have daily record lows outnumber daily record highs for the first time in 20 years.

 

That’s a stark reversal from last year — the warmest year on record in the U.S. â€” when record daily highs dwarfed record lows by a staggering 4-to-1 ratio. It’s also a stark reminder of the vagaries of short-term natural variability set against the backdrop of long-term global warming.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/for-first-time-in-20-years-cold-records-may-beat-warm-in-u.s-16790

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18373

 

It would appear others , than myself, have concerns about the impacts of rapid climate shift? We all know about the 'slow' changes we are to expect ( and some folk seek to exploit the 'slow nature of change' to downplay concerns?) but what of the 'unexpected' rapid shifts we ought to prepare for? Changes in the Arctic don't just serve to illustrate unexpected rapid change but also serve as a warning of future 'climate shocks'.

[Methuselah]

Then again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_xZeFLN00w

[Gray-Wolf]

Then again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_xZeFLN00w

 

What can I add???

[knocker]

The latest paper by Hansen, et, al.

 

Assessing ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change’’: RequiredReduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People,

Future Generations and Nature

http://www.plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/pone-8-12-hansen.pdf

I've just got to post this comment from one of the WUWT deluded.  This is the most scientific rebuttal that most of the WUWTers can come up with! The list refers to the list of authors. You really couldn't make it up.
DesertYote says:

 December 3, 2013 at 5:46 pm
One can not assume good intentions that have been misdirected by stupidity. Ever single person in this list is a Marxist. The destruction of capitalism is the goal. Peoples lives are unimportant

Edited December 4, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

http://thesiweather.com/2013/12/03/1215-pm-global-sea-ice-areal-extent-at-highest-level-since-1994-southern-hemisphere-continues-on-a-record-run-for-this-time-of-year/

 

True, false or 'information' snow?

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://thesiweather.com/2013/12/03/1215-pm-global-sea-ice-areal-extent-at-highest-level-since-1994-southern-hemisphere-continues-on-a-record-run-for-this-time-of-year/

 

True, false or 'information' snow?

 

The highest attribution to the AMO I've seen has been just 30%, not to mention that sea ice extent and thickness were on downward trends from 79 to the mid 90s anyway.

 

As for the global data, seems plausible. But looking at the data  shows for total extent, a number of weeks ago we reached the highest point since 1996 (not current, or 1994 as suggested) and anomaly-wise, just the highest since 2009.

[Gray-Wolf]

I just feel that the 'minds' behind driving such reports/observations are set well beyond the advantages they are exploiting from this current set up of natural climate drivers?

 

It's like a game of chess and you have to ask 'how many moves ahead' are such folk working on? We ( us casual combatants?)  know full well that we can look forward to a period where natural drivers again 'augment' global temperature rises and that this time some regions are already greatly altered, since the last time we saw Nature adding into man made warming, and so will react in a very different way than they did back then? Surely, even at our level, we can see that Arctic changes will rapidly turn that region into another positive forcing ( on top of the other natural forcings) for warming and so bring us the potential for a warming spurt well above what we encountered the last time we endured Naturally augmented AGW?

 

If ,through the current 'slowdown' in the rate of Global temperature rises, we have seen such costly weather/climate events then what ought we to be expecting from renewed rapid warming?

 

Where are those 'minds' planning to focus through such a period? How will they maintain their current level of disruption/disinformation for their paymasters when we reach the next warming phase? Are they already preparing to quit the debate ( knowing that they will be unable to gloss over such a period of renewed warming?) .

 

I will be very interested to see how the folk ,who choose to reproduce the materials the climate misleaders provide, will continue with their own personal campaigns when that 'source' dries up?

 

EDIT: Oh! and this;

 

http://www.caneurope.org/resources/latest-publications/636-this-is-climate-change-in-europe

 

Another troubling read for us 'Marxists'?

Edited December 4, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/page-57#entry2853475 

I've just got to post this comment from one of the WUWT deluded.  This is the most scientific rebuttal that most of the WUWTers can come up with! The list refers to the list of authors. You really couldn't make it up.DesertYote says: 

Too near home I think, I notice the anti-capitalist rant threads are a favourite.The Met Office seems to have a strange attraction to those of a left wing persuasion. the most scientific rebuttal that most of the WUWTers can come up with Umm No - you just picked one comment  to confirm your bias and obsession with finding things to denigrate.

 

Could you explain that personnel comment regarding my obsession with finding things to denigrate apart from your pathetic attempts at scientific discussion.

 

And what justification do you have for, "The Met Office seems to have a strange attraction to those of a left wing persuasion". I didn't know you were privy to this information. The anti-capitalist rants do appear to be the main refuge of the deniers given they have no credible science to fall back on.

Edited December 4, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

A little piece of history.

 

Flashback to 1909: Professor Skeats on CO2 and water vapour acting as "a kind of a blanket"

[Methuselah]

.

And what justification do you have for, "The Met Office seems to have a strange attraction to those of a left wing persuasion". I didn't know you were privy to this information. The anti-capitalist rants do appear to be the main refuge of the deniers given they have no credible science to fall back on.

Apparently - I assume - some folks believe that science can be invalidated by its practitioners' voting habits? 

[Gray-Wolf]

When the folk , still in denial about the upcoming changes, accept the need for global action to mitigate the worse impacts of a warming world then how do they see those changes being implemented? Will it be at the hands of the Capitalist system they feel so protective about or from an expanded government on some kind of 'War footing'?

 

Some of us are accepting that the sooner we act the less we need to act. The longer we leave it the harder it will be to save us from dangerous temperature changes and so the more impacting the 'change's will need to be implemented. 

 

It would appear , if only to me, that the folk who pin their hopes on the words of the climate misleaders, and have aided them in their delaying of concerted action (by further broadcasting their words for them), have lead us to a situation where we now face deeper cuts to keep us from dangerous temperature change or to face worse climate chaos than we need have faced had we not been so delayed?

 

At the end of the day I fear those terrified by Socialism are going to drive us to the very thing they fear most, a situation where government enforce draconian measures upon the population in an attempt to save us from even worse in the future.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Perhaps a more realistic appraisal than the often misquoted Dr. Viner (just a bit of fun) from  Ed Hawkins-should it be Red Hawkins?- of Reading.

 

The future of white Christmases

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/future-of-white-christmases/

Edited December 4, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Pop into the Tardis and have another trip into the past to 1884.

 

Flashback to 1884: A few hundredths of carbonic acid gas in the atmosphere...the surface...would become like a vast orchid house

[knocker]

I must admit I wasn't entirely happy with the "Climat Bomb Article" in SS the other day. So here is a reply by Tom Yulman.

 

The Climate Bomb Redux

[4wd]

 

I must admit I wasn't entirely happy with the "Climat Bomb Article" in SS the other day. So here is a reply by Tom Yulman.

 

The Climate Bomb Redux

 

Like, especially 

 

 

The trouble starts when this communication environment fills up with toxic partisan meanings — ones that effectively announce that ‘if you are one of us, believe this; otherwise, we’ll know you are one of them’. In that situation, ordinary individuals’ lives will go better if their perceptions of societal risk conform with those of their group.

I very much doubt that John Cook and his colleagues at Skeptical Science would be happy with increased polarization on climate change. But I fear that is what the Hiroshima comparison will accomplish.

[mikeworst]

 

Pop into the Tardis and have another trip into the past to 1884.

 

 

[knocker]

New Jersey Shore Likely Faces Unprecedented Flooding by Mid-Century

 

Geoscientists at Rutgers and Tufts universities estimate that the New Jersey shore will likely experience a sea-level rise of about 1.5 feet by 2050 and of about 3.5 feet by 2100 – 11 to 15 inches higher than the average for sea-level rise globally over the century.

 

http://news.rutgers.edu/news/new-jersey-shore-likely-faces-unprecedented-flooding-mid-century/20131204#.UqD3Tif_yVJ

[knocker]

Like, especially 

 

But let's not forget polarization of the debate is mainly driven by the inane mutterings of Watts, Goddard, Monckton, et al that have as much reliance on science as David Icke has to reality.

[knocker]

Building a 30 year glacier mass balance time series

 

Here's a short blog post from some other part of the cryosphere, dedicated to the hard work that scientists are putting into gathering data. These are not think tank folks in suits devising strategies for steering public opinion or keeping it in place. These are hard-working people who go out there to assess situations, make measurements, build up collections of data. Even though we rarely hear about them, there are thousands of honest people doing this, tens of thousands, now, yesterday, tomorrow.

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/12/building-a-30-year-glacier-mass-balance-time-series.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Gray-Wolf]

But let's not forget polarization of the debate is mainly driven by the inane mutterings of Watts, Goddard, Monckton, et al that have as much reliance on science as David Icke has to reality.

 

Though not 'noble' it is somewhat understandable that some folk 'snapped' at the constant personal attacks they were forced to endure at the hands of the folk you mention?

 

I believe that 'Science' has now begun to deal more effectively with such personal assaults and has become better organised in both it's initial releases and the way it deals with the attacks that follow knew data/findings.

 

However 'small' the imbalance appears, when compared to the 'total' energy received, folk need to understand that over time the cumulative impacts will drive changes of a greater magnitude? 

 

Surely Nature can only be expected to 'soak up' this extra forcing for so long before She is overwhelmed and must retreat to a Climate that better reflects this 'new' energy available in the system?

 

Maybe an image of a system becoming increasingly unstable as it approaches a sudden point of collapse? Like a giant game of Jenga with every year of inaction another block removed.........

[knocker]

I find it rather amusing that the intellectuals in the other thread are doing exactly what they are accused of. When lacking any substantial science to support their ideological stance they resort to vacuous rhetoric. I await their debut with the literati in WUWT with baited breath. Assuming of course they are not already be there.