Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

The paper you are on about was the New Zealand Alps if I remember correctly.

 

I don't think so because I remember digging up some climate data for Switzerland.

[knocker]

Awesome fossil fuel burning is defying the past and defining the future

 

More fossil fuel projects approved in Australia as geologists say there's no precedent for current speed of carbon dioxide releases

 

 

The Geological Society in the UK, the world's oldest geological group, has just updated its climate change statement to take account of new scientific findings.

 

The society says the speed that CO2 concentrations are rising in the atmosphere is now "unprecedented" – and they too have looked a long way back for a precedent. The society says:

…  the rates of increase of CO2 since 1970 are unprecedented, even in comparison with the massive injections of carbon to the atmosphere at the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary, which led to a major thermal event 55 million years ago.

 

In some places on earth during the Pliocene, when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were similar to today, the society says after hundreds of years sea levels went up 20 metres in some places.

If emissions keep rising, then the society says the earth will have levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that have not been experienced for 24 million years or more.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/dec/12/climate-change-awesome-australia-fossil-fuel-great-barrier-reef-abbot-point-coal?CMP=twt_gu

Edited December 12, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

It certainly was the european alps and K.L. framed it as though ALL of the Alps had been cooling for 20 years and that the news was greeted with 'stunned silence' when presented to scientists.

 

In fact the 'report' was focused on one area of the bavarian or Austrian Alps and so I presented the forum with weather records, for all the Alps, up until the data set ended in 2003 ( which itself was a record high year above all others!) which was 10 years into this 20 year period.

 

EDIT: Thanks BFTV! I retract my ramblings unresevedly and will toddle off to the corner to feel foolish!

Edited December 12, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[UV-RAY]

It certainly was the european alps and K.L. framed it as though ALL of the Alps had been cooling for 20 years and that the news was greeted with 'stunned silence' when presented to scientists.

 

In fact the 'report' was focused on one area of the bavarian or Austrian Alps and so I presented the forum with weather records, for all the Alps, up until the data set ended in 2003 ( which itself was a record high year above all others!) which was 10 years into this 20 year period.

 

Sadly an extensive search of both threads shows that this conversation has disappeared. I do not think that this is a fair policy for the moderation team to follow as it was an important illustration of the 'techniques' the Climate Misleaders use in their attempts to confuse and mislead folk interested in our climate changes. I do not blame K.L. for being so fooled by the organisation/publication that brought him the information as their headline was plain and unambiguous. Sadly it was wrong and provoked the now 'removed' conversation.

 

I think it is very important that the wider readership should be allowed to see that this type of 'Climate misleading' is not just anecdotal but is a reality that even extends to the information the receive from this site ( and other , similar forums) and that they should be more 'sceptical' in their approach to the science by checking the sources of the 'information' and other relevant data pertaining to the subject matter.

 

To see this whole conversation removed from the section does lead me to wonder as to 'who gains' from it's removal and whether we may be seeing some bias within the moderation of the section ( which would be deplorable when we have been lead to believe management act impartially in this area?).

Which posts were removed GW?

[BornFromTheVoid]

It certainly was the european alps and K.L. framed it as though ALL of the Alps had been cooling for 20 years and that the news was greeted with 'stunned silence' when presented to scientists. In fact the 'report' was focused on one area of the bavarian or Austrian Alps and so I presented the forum with weather records, for all the Alps, up until the data set ended in 2003 ( which itself was a record high year above all others!) which was 10 years into this 20 year period. Sadly an extensive search of both threads shows that this conversation has disappeared. I do not think that this is a fair policy for the moderation team to follow as it was an important illustration of the 'techniques' the Climate Misleaders use in their attempts to confuse and mislead folk interested in our climate changes. I do not blame K.L. for being so fooled by the organisation/publication that brought him the information as their headline was plain and unambiguous. Sadly it was wrong and provoked the now 'removed' conversation. I think it is very important that the wider readership should be allowed to see that this type of 'Climate misleading' is not just anecdotal but is a reality that even extends to the information the receive from this site ( and other , similar forums) and that they should be more 'sceptical' in their approach to the science by checking the sources of the 'information' and other relevant data pertaining to the subject matter. To see this whole conversation removed from the section does lead me to wonder as to 'who gains' from it's removal and whether we may be seeing some bias within the moderation of the section ( which would be deplorable when we have been lead to believe management act impartially in this area?).

Perhaps it's best not to jump to conclusions when we can't find things?Are you referring to this? http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/?p=2843929

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2860709

 

More weather. Mild here isn't it?

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-44#entry2859433

 

All of the posts I linked to are 'liked' by you - you had hit the 'like this' button. I assumed that means you approved of them - if not why 'like' them?

Edited December 12, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

Richard Alley at the AGU 13 today.

 

What will the ice sheets do?

 

Thermal expansion alone will result in about 0.4 m (a foot) per degree Celsius.  But that, he said, is a "thousand year problem" because it takes a long time to warm the ocean.  It's the ice sheets that are the biggest problem in the near term.  He said, the uncertainty is "lopsided on the bad side".  In short, the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers in Antarctica are flowing quickly but they've got to get through a narrow neck.  If that neck gets unblocked then we're in unknown territory. The ice there represents around 3.3 metres or 10 feet of sea level rise.  It's "jammed up behind a narrow mouth".  He said if it retreats "we get into physics that we don't really know what to do with yet".  Ice exhibits tipping behaviour.  Nothing happens for a while then all of a sudden....

 

sea level projections - with some estimates a bit higher than in the IPCC report:

Edited December 12, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-44#entry2859433

 

All of the posts I linked to are 'liked' by you - you had hit the 'like this' button. I assumed that means you approved of them - if not why 'like' them?

Do you mean me??? There are many posts that, though I might not agree with them in their entirety, they are still good posts...? I do hope that no-one is expected to 'like' each-and-every post from one 'side' only?

 

Just tell if I'm barking up the wrong tree, Dev...Otherwise, what does your post mean exactly? 

[Devonian]

Do you mean me??? There are many posts that, though I might not agree with them in their entirety, they are still good posts...? I do hope that no-one is expected to 'like' each-and-every post from one 'side' only?

Just tell if I'm barking up the wrong tree, Dev...Otherwise, what does your post mean exactly?

I'm replying to SI, viz posts he's 'liked' and their wording, which wording I highlighted in another earlier post. Do keep up Pete .

Edited December 12, 2013 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

I'm replying to SI, viz posts he's 'liked' and their wording, which wording I highlighted in another earlier post. Do keep up Pete .

Warning! Warning! 

 

Repeated thread-switching can be dangerous! 

[UV-RAY]

I'm replying to SI, viz posts he's 'liked' and their wording, which wording I highlighted in another earlier post. Do keep up Pete .

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-44#entry2859433

 

All of the posts I linked to are 'liked' by you - you had hit the 'like this' button. I assumed that means you approved of them - if not why 'like' them?

what post are you referring to, you've lost me?

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861004

 

I would have thought it most unlikely anyone will deign to reply as the post from Kl should be in the extreme weather worldwide thread. it's quite careless to mix them up. 

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861085

 

Actually if you look I put one re, the drought in the US SW in weather around the world just this morning. I do expect others to be just as scrupulous. And I might add there is probably a stronger case for not doing so but rules are rules.

Edited December 13, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861145

 

I think using the tragic plight of the Syrian refugees in an attempt to score a few cheap points, in what at the end of the day isn't even a climate matter, is stooping a bit low even for you lot. Although one could be forgiven for not realising it, this is supposed to be a scientific discussion area, not a  p *****g contest.

Edited December 13, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry, seem to have lost a bit of the htread since BT mucked up our broadband! Has there been another 'deep Arctic Plunge' bringing extreme weather to the middle east then?

 

Why are the reports not in the 'Arctic weather impacting our weather' thread???

[stewfox]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861145

 

I think using the tragic plight of the Syrian refugees in an attempt to score a few cheap points, in what at the end of the day isn't even a climate matter, is stooping a bit low even for you lot. Although one could be forgiven for not realising it, this is supposed to be a scientific discussion area, not a  p *****g contest.

 

I am glad we agree day to day or season to season weather , hot or cold cant be pinned to Global warming, at least on here. We can leave that for the papers

 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/killer-heat/

[knocker]

I'm not convinced we do agree. Keith posted, headline news, snow in Jerusalem, for no other reason I assume than to attempt to make some, not very subtle and irrelevant point regarding AGW. I posted in weather around the world that the drought effecting most of the Western states in the past 13 years may be a “megadrought,â€and the likelihood is high that this century could see a multi-decade dry spell like nothing else seen over the past 1,000 years, according to research presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting on Wednesday and Thursday.

 

Now the latter I could have put in the climate area but as yet I know of no direct link between this and AGW so opted to put it where I did. So I maintain we do not agree day or season to season weather.

Edited December 13, 2013 by knocker

[mikeworst]

So it is OK for you Knocker to post stuff about warming and droughts etc.. but when Keith does so and you do not like it he has an agenda (and you do not?). Pot,kettle,black.

Edited December 13, 2013 by mikeworst

[stewfox]

I'm not convinced we do agree. Keith posted, headline news, snow in Jerusalem, for no other reason I assume than to attempt to make some, not very subtle and irrelevant point regarding AGW. I posted in weather around the world that the drought effecting most of the Western states in the past 13 years may be a “megadrought,â€and the likelihood is high that this century could see a multi-decade dry spell like nothing else seen over the past 1,000 years, according to research presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting on Wednesday and Thursday.

 

Now the latter I could have put in the climate area but as yet I know of no direct link between this and AGW so opted to put it where I did. So I maintain we do not agree day or season to season weather.

 

Snowfall and cold in Jerusalem has increase dramatically in recent yrs (report from Jan 2013 , lets leave at that)

 

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snow-cold-arrive-in-jerusalem/20880578

[BornFromTheVoid]

So it is OK for you Knocker to post stuff about warming and droughts etc.. but when Keith does so and you do not like it he has an agenda (and you do not?). Pot,kettle,black.

 

Without getting into the level of evidence to support either position, Knocker's point is about where the stuff was posted. Not simply who posts what.

[mikeworst]

Fine, whatever (for harmony's sake)

[knocker]

So it is OK for you Knocker to post stuff about warming and droughts etc.. but when Keith does so and you do not like it he has an agenda (and you do not?). Pot,kettle,black.

 

Born has already answered which I'll confirm is my point.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-study-adds-to-arctic-warming-extreme-weather-debate-16811

 

Didn't quite know where to post this but seeing as the Jerusalem cold plunge was mentioned here I thought it best?

 

I know some folk have issues with the publication so I suggest that they just follow the many links and work from there? Anyhoo's the AGU is throwing up a lot of discussion around the changes the Arctic will bring to us all and also the speed at which we expect those changes to manifest. 

 

I feel that this year has given the other thread a period of time to gloat over but I fear that we will see the changes we witnessed through the late noughties come to completion by the end of this decade? I've always noted the cyclical period of the 'Perfect melt storm' was between 10 and 20 years and that the two prior to 07' were 10 years apart. I still feel that , before 2020, the next 'Perfect melt storm' will bring the Arctic basin to 'ice free' ( 1 million or less) and that this sudden intensification from 1/3 open water to completely ice free will rapidly settle the current debate as to the impacts it passes down to the mid latitudes.

 

What troubles me more is the forecast rapid expansion of the 'ice free period' back toward July over the following decade. If current low ice levels are driving change worth debating then what will the 'ice free' summer drive? If that is worse then what should we expect of a 12 week period of open water???

 

I've begun to alter my wish that a climate event will come along to settle the debate as to impacts ( a link all will need accept) as the prospects are now becoming far worse than the alleged 'Alarmist warnings' from the early noughties!

 

EDIT:  http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=222#commenttop

 

Just noted this and can't escape the comparison with the 72' event? I know temps were far lower back then but what other 'phase change' was in the offing back then? Yup! PDO was swinging positive!

Edited December 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[jonboy]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-study-adds-to-arctic-warming-extreme-weather-debate-16811

 

Didn't quite know where to post this but seeing as the Jerusalem cold plunge was mentioned here I thought it best?

 

I know some folk have issues with the publication so I suggest that they just follow the many links and work from there? Anyhoo's the AGU is throwing up a lot of discussion around the changes the Arctic will bring to us all and also the speed at which we expect those changes to manifest. 

 

I feel that this year has given the other thread a period of time to gloat over but I fear that we will see the changes we witnessed through the late noughties come to completion by the end of this decade? I've always noted the cyclical period of the 'Perfect melt storm' was between 10 and 20 years and that the two prior to 07' were 10 years apart. I still feel that , before 2020, the next 'Perfect melt storm' will bring the Arctic basin to 'ice free' ( 1 million or less) and that this sudden intensification from 1/3 open water to completely ice free will rapidly settle the current debate as to the impacts it passes down to the mid latitudes.

 

What troubles me more is the forecast rapid expansion of the 'ice free period' back toward July over the following decade. If current low ice levels are driving change worth debating then what will the 'ice free' summer drive? If that is worse then what should we expect of a 12 week period of open water???

 

I've begun to alter my wish that a climate event will come along to settle the debate as to impacts ( a link all will need accept) as the prospects are now becoming far worse than the alleged 'Alarmist warnings' from the early noughties!

 

This is not a gloat GW but given what you have just said we have probably 4/5 years to see if your basket is fatally flawed.