Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-43#entry2856614

 

I'm sorry but for obvious reasons nobody mentioned minds, closed or otherwise. This is again evidenced by the intriguing fact that you can seek answers without reading the science out there. Surely a Prima Facie case of a 'mind' fixated by an unsubstantiated ideology, already made up and presumed to have the answers already.

[Methuselah]

There seems to be a widespread need for quick, simple answers to every question...But - unfortunately for many - the days when one's religion (or any simplistic ideology, philosophy, superstition or Alan Greenspan) of-choice could provide folks with their requisite dose of untestable factoids are on their way out...

 

I hope!

Edited December 6, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[knocker]

Streuth, a denier.

Edited December 6, 2013 by knocker

[mikeworst]

Deny what, exactly?

[knocker]

That it's been snowing. Seems to fit the mindset.

[UV-RAY]

That it's been snowing. Seems to fit the mindset.

Well at least snow can lay on a sceptics head though I seriously doubt it would on proponents of AGW, what with all that heat escaping on top due to a lack of insulation in the noggin area.

[Methuselah]

Well at least snow can lay on a sceptics head though I seriously doubt it would on proponents of AGW, what with all that heat escaping on top due to a lack of insulation in the noggin area.

At least we've a need for insulation! 

[knocker]

 

I've probably read more of the official stance than your good self Mike, it's just that I'm not taken in by conjecture and a global dataset which tells us that even though CO2 continues to rise unabated, global temps remains as you were.

 

Of course you are not taken in. You have a perfectly rational scientific explanation for the  undisputed rise in temps since the Industrial Revolution, rise in sea levels, glaciers melting, ice sheet mass balance loss, etc. Do please share. Oh and this.

 

[UV-RAY]

Of course you are not taken in. You have a perfectly rational scientific explanation for the  undisputed rise in temps since the Industrial Revolution, rise in sea levels, glaciers melting, ice sheet mass balance loss, etc. Do please share. Oh and this.

 

What about the big white elephant in the room, you know that one what says what warming........ Yeah that one which is knocking on 20 years. Still keep the scare stories coming they do amuse me and that I'm eternally gratefully for.

[Methuselah]

What about the big white elephant in the room, you know that one what says what warming........ Yeah that one which is knocking on 20 years. Still keep the scare stories coming they do amuse me and that I'm eternally gratefully for.

Ah, but if you were to repeat the spectroscopic analyses of CO₂ ​, for yourself, you'd know? 

 

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/CO21M.jpg

Edited December 6, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[knocker]

What about the big white elephant in the room, you know that one what says what warming........ Yeah that one which is knocking on 20 years. Still keep the scare stories coming they do amuse me and that I'm eternally gratefully for.

 

Still awaiting the explanation. Don't leave it too long as I'm nearly 72. Oh and I see the goal posts have moved to 20 years now.

 

Source: NASA

[Methuselah]

The goalposts are always moving, Malcolm. If 2010 was the warmest year to date, 20 years might well be regarding as something of an exaggeration?

[UV-RAY]

Still awaiting the explanation. Don't leave it too long as I'm nearly 72. Oh and I see the goal posts have moved to 20 years now.Source: NASA

I'll go with what the MetO and the official sources say not some fudged data young man, global surface temps have stalled for 17 years, no amount of lies and deception will alter those facts. Edited December 6, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[knocker]

I'll ignore your usual patronizing. So NASA has fudged the data which no doubt you can explain. Any thoughts on the pause mid-century before the warming started again. Maybe natural cycles suppressing CO₂ forcing? Or maybe not. And why did the warming suddenly take off again? I see we are back from 20 to 17 years. It really is a moveable feast.

[UV-RAY]

Mid century pause Lol, care to look back further just in case you've missed something. Let's deal in the here and now, we have and again I may have to SHOUT this as the facts don't seem to be sinking in. 17 years and counting of no further warming in the global surface data sets, now are you accusing the MetO of having a cooling agenda or as most proponents of the science do accept this as a fact. Take your time I realise how difficult this question regarding the pause is for you.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Tamara]

Boys! (all of you) calm down and be nice to one another

[UV-RAY]

Boys! (all of you) calm down and be nice to one another

Lol, sorry Miss but he started it.

[knocker]

Boys! (all of you) calm down and be nice to one another

 

I'm perfectly calm, which is quite remarkable in the face of such a remarkable ego. The arrogant manner in which the undisputed rise in temps since the Industrial Revolution, rise in sea levels, glaciers melting, ice sheet mass balance loss over 150 odd years is casually dismissed, and NASA accused of fudging the figures, beggars belief. And just for the record I'm not the who has accused NASA of fudging the data without any supporting evidence.

 

And unlike SI I have read what the METO had to say. Hope he doesn't mind a link.

 

 

Concluding remarks

 

What can we conclude from all this? First, periods of slowing down and pauses in surface warming are not unusual in the instrumental temperature record. Second, climate model simulations suggest that we can expect such a period of a decade or more to occur at least twice per century, due to internal variability alone. Third, recent research suggests that ocean heat re-arrangements, with a contribution from changes in top of the atmosphere radiation,could be important for explaining the recent pause in global surface warming.

 

We note, however, the need for better continuous long-term records of the net radiation at the top of the atmosphere in general, and of solar radiation in particular to understand decadal changes in global climate. We also need to maintain and extend to deeper levels(below 2000m) the monitoring of the heat content and thermal structure of the oceans by in situ measurements, building on the tremendous advances made in recent years with the introduction of Argo floats,and the constraints using the sea level measurements from satellites and tide gauges.Finally we note the importance of understanding the dynamics ofthe global oceans, and how this acts to rearrange heat within the system. Of particular relevance here is a greater understanding of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean.

 

The scientific questions posed by the current pause in global surface warming require us to understand in much greater detail the flows of energy into, out of, and around the Earth system. Current observations are not detailed enough or of long enough duration to provide definitive answers on the causes of the recent pause, and therefore do note enable us to close the Earth’s energy budget. These are major scientific challenges that the research community is actively pursuing, drawing on exploration and experimentation using a combination of theory, models and observations.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

 

Best summed up.........

 

 

But you are right Tamara. Time to draw a line under this exercise in futility.

Edited December 7, 2013 by knocker

[UV-RAY]

I'm perfectly calm, which is quite remarkable in the face of such a remarkable ego. The arrogant manner in which the undisputed rise in temps since the Industrial Revolution, rise in sea levels, glaciers melting, ice sheet mass balance loss over 150 odd years is casually dismissed, and NASA accused of fudging the figures, beggars belief. And just for the record I'm not the who has accused NASA of fudging the data without any supporting evidence.

 

And unlike SI I have read what the METO had to say. Hope he doesn't mind a link.

 

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

 

Best summed up.........

 

 

But you are right Tamara. Time to draw a line under this exercise in futility.

Lol, ignoring your remarks about my ego ( humour really ) what the MetO has to say as a causation is pretty damming in their own defence of the theory. The reason being that you cannot attribute the PDO for a pause in the warming when a. The PDO didn't change to negative until September2007 and b. If we can attribute the PDO for causing a slowdown, then why can't we  say it's mainly responsible for the warming of the last 30 years, combined with a solar cycle that has been one of the strongest in over a 100 years?

Edited December 7, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Lol, ignoring your remarks about my ego ( humour really ) what the MetO has to say as a causation is pretty damming in their own defence of the theory. The reason being that you cannot attribute the PDO for a pause in the warming when a. The PDO didn't change to negative until September2007 and b. If we can attribute the PDO for causing a slowdown, then why can't we  say it's mainly responsible for the warming of the last 30 years, combined with a solar cycle that has been one of the strongest in over a 100 years?

 

They didn't say the PDO. There is more going on in the Pacific than that, ENSO, IPO etc. Before the AGW, they would have caused slight warming and slight cooling, but, because of us, it's either fast warming or slow warming.

 

It's nice to see you now admit that we've only seen a slowdown in surface air warming though, shows your not completely incapable of changing your opinion

[UV-RAY]

They didn't say the PDO. There is more going on in the Pacific than that, ENSO, IPO etc. Before the AGW, they would have caused slight warming and slight cooling, but, because of us, it's either fast warming or slow warming.

 

It's nice to see you now admit that we've only seen a slowdown in surface air warming though, shows your not completely incapable of changing your opinion

Indeed, but they have and continue to miss the biggest player of them all and that is the big ball of fire in the sky. As for the slowdown, well a pause is a pause and the official stance remains that of no further warming for 17 years. Of course warming may well  resume at some point, but if it doesn't or temps start to decline whilst CO2 continues to rise then there really is nowhere to hide and no amount of find the missing heat content will alter the fact that some scientists have way overestimated the importance of CO2. Food for though BFTV and if we do see global temps rise then obviously sceptics are wrong and the theory is sound.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Indeed, but they have and continue to miss the biggest player of them all and that is the big ball of fire in the sky. As for the slowdown, well a pause is a pause and the official stance remains that of no further warming for 17 years. Of course warming may well  resume at some point, but if it doesn't or temps start to decline whilst CO2 continues to rise then there really is nowhere to hide and no amount of find the missing heat content will alter the fact that some scientists have way overestimated the importance of CO2. Food for though BFTV and if we do see global temps rise then obviously sceptics are wrong and the theory is sound.

 

But they haven't missed that either. Lots of research has been done and is currently being done on the effects of solar activity, with the Met Office being at the forefront, especailly investigation the impact of UV fluctuations. In their report on the slowdown, they say

 

It is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it.

 

Indeed, if we do see cooling on a climatological scale, then the influence of CO2 will certainly have to be reassessed. But for now, short term fluctuations in surface air temperatures say nothing either way about the validity of AGW, as there are many things which have a much bigger influence in the short term than CO2. In a similar way, if we see a warming trend in the CET over the next two weeks, it doesn't cast doubt of the theory of seasons or how they influence temperatures, it just shows that on short timescales variability in the weather can dominate over seasonal cooling.

[UV-RAY]

But they haven't missed that either. Lots of research has been done and is currently being done on the effects of solar activity, with the Met Office being at the forefront, especailly investigation the impact of UV fluctuations. In their report on the slowdown, they sayIt is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it.Indeed, if we do see cooling on a climatological scale, then the influence of CO2 will certainly have to be reassessed. But for now, short term fluctuations in surface air temperatures say nothing either way about the validity of AGW, as there are many things which have a much bigger influence in the short term than CO2. In a similar way, if we see a warming trend in the CET over the next two weeks, it doesn't cast doubt of the theory of seasons or how they influence temperatures, it just shows that on short timescales variability in the weather can dominate over seasonal cooling.

It's that UV fluctuation and how that correlates with the Hadley pressure cell, not just now with low solar output but one has to look at the last 100 years when solar output was at its highest and how UV output pushed the Hadley pressure cell polewards Aside all of that, a good post BFTV. Edited December 7, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[knocker]

Lol, ignoring your remarks about my ego ( humour really ) what the MetO has to say as a causation is pretty damming in their own defence of the theory.

I must admit I find that a bit odd after you have said.

 

"I'll go with what the MetO and the official sources say not some fudged data young man",

 

Have they fallen out of favour already young man?

 

Anyway

Edited December 7, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I thought we only finally 'defined' a PDO phase after we had entered the next one? NASA have called PDO-ve twice during this phase and you are closer to the second with your 2007 date? Post 98' Nino PDO-ve was tentatively called but then the ocean temps seemed to contradict this leading to the later date ( once ocean temps, in the region used as an indicator, had again dropped off). Being such a newly defined cycle we are in the 'steep learning curve' as to it's workings. The last I read on the cycle noted that post 1980's cycles were impacted by AGW forcings ( milding of the cold phase and propensity toward warm phase across neutral/warm temps). I have said many times now that , come the 'switch' back to PDO+ve we will have the 98' date as the start and the rush back to warm temps, in the early noughties, as an anom that , pre 80's ,would have been 'neutral' and so not influenced discussions of current phase?

 

Should this prove to be correct then we are now at the tail end of the current PDO -ve and so should expect ever more 'neutral' temps across the ocean area used for classification ( amongst both cold and warm anoms).

 

The Globally 'dimmed' period ( 40's to 70's) has been well studied and , to me, the fact that global temps did not crash back to pre 1880 temps even with the 'extra' forcing for cooling that our pollution brought to the table suggests that even this natural variability was not as severe as we see in the past few centuries?

 

At the end of the day we will end this period of cool driver dominance and return to one of warm driver dominance and it is then we shall see just how much AGW is augmenting that phase by just how high the warming rate becomes? In the same way that the folk concerned about AGW always accepted the role of those 'positive drivers' through the last warming spurt then ,come a resumption in warming, the natural 'warm drivers' will be removed to see just how much AGW is now impacting temp rises.

 

The hard thing to 'tease out' of that data will be how the influences of the new low snow levels ( over spring and summer) and low sea ice volume/extent/area ( compared to the last warming phase) in summer/autumn are impacting global temps? We also might see some of the excess ocean heat pushing warming to higher levels so should such influence be laid at natures door or at man's? 

Edited December 7, 2013 by Gray-Wolf