Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/page-62#entry2860990

 

OK, one last time.

 

SI in this post you complained about the language of another forum member. You said (of the words 'climate misleaders') "Which is far far more derogatory then anything I've seen posted anywhere else on any forum. "  

 

In this post I pointed out posts you have 'liked' - you can see your name in the lists of 'likes'.

 

So, I ask, why do you dislike the use of the word 'misleader' so much you find it " far far more derogatory then anything I've seen posted anywhere else on any forum. "  but 'like' posts that accuse those who normally frequent this thread of wanting people 'euthanized', of another net weather member here being a 'stalker' and of people elsewhere being 'half wits'? 

 

I am simply trying to understand why you so strongly disapprove of the word misleader but 'liked' the use of the words euthanasia, stalker and half wit? Because, whatever they may be, words like those are not compliments. Indeed I find them to be deeply derogatory...

Edited December 13, 2013 by Devonian

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861002

 

Warmest temperatures, not just for 60 years, but on record in Alaska. All, I hasten to add, weather..

[Methuselah]

Fair enough, folks...But I think it's time we all got back to the subject? Put a line under it?

[UV-RAY]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/page-62#entry2860990

 

OK, one last time.

 

SI in this post you complained about the language of another forum member. You said (of the words 'climate misleaders') "Which is far far more derogatory then anything I've seen posted anywhere else on any forum. "  

 

In this post I pointed out posts you have 'liked' - you can see your name in the lists of 'likes'.

 

So, I ask, why do you dislike the use of the word 'misleader' so much you find it " far far more derogatory then anything I've seen posted anywhere else on any forum. "  but 'like' posts that accuse those who normally frequent this thread of wanting people 'euthanized', of another net weather member here being a 'stalker' and of people elsewhere being 'half wits'? 

 

I am simply trying to understand why you so strongly disapprove of the word misleader but 'liked' the use of the words euthanasia, stalker and half wit? Because, whatever they may be, words like those are not compliments. Indeed I find them to be deeply derogatory...

I still can't find the post your referring to Dev, but whichever one it is I find the constant labelling of being a misleader both tiresome and very inflammatory. I don't mind humorous quips but GW is deadly serious about this terminology.

[Gray-Wolf]

I still can't find the post your referring to Dev, but whichever one it is I find the constant labelling of being a misleader both tiresome and very inflammatory. I don't mind humorous quips but GW is deadly serious about this terminology.

 

Indeed I am but I have done everything in my power to have folks understand the group of folk that such a term refers to. In reality it is just a descriptor of the actions of this group of people and ,as such, there is no need to look further than Ms Francis' astute observation of them? They actively seek to mislead the general public about all matters pertaining to climate science and the data it provides us. There is no debate about them and their activities nor about the support ( and direction?) they receive from the folk who fund them. There is no doubt that they have sought to delay global action on mitigating climate change nor that they appear content to continue in this endeavour. The 'Alpine' 20yr cooldown is a perfect example of the type of activity they engage in and the fact it made it to 'posting' here shows just how successful they are in fooling some into believing their stories.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Impressive turn around in temps over parts of sweden the past few days?

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=224

 

a temp rise of 48.5c in just 48hrs!!!! amazing! 

 

Just because we are not 'suffering' the extremes of the convoluted jets Troughs or ridges doesn't mean that such patterns have disappeared from the northern hemisphere. Just remember that every unseasonably cold region is balanced by the areas blighted by the Ridge and the high temps rapidly drawn up there( as we see in the U.S. with Alaska's recent high's....btw a few max daily temp records still falling in the SE USA just outside the 'cold plunge').

 

Remember , hidden in among these extreme weather events we are still seeing global temps increase and so the 10c isotherm move north with all the disruption that brings to local ecosystems.

 

EDIT: thanks mods.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861431

 

Struth, how many more times? It's weather, Keith, W E A T H E R. Just like this just posted above by GW.

 

Add up weather and average that sum = climate. If that changes then we take notice.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861431

 

Very impressive indeed. Does seem to confirm that  global warming is disrupting atmospheric patterns causing regional weather extremes both warm and cold.

 

 

You've probably heard a lot in recent years about how Arctic sea ice is melting. So what's the big deal? After all, the Arctic's a fair distance away and you're not a polar bear.

 

Scientists worry that changes in the Arctic will have knock-on effects in other parts of the world, including closer to home. This includes on our winter weather, with three separate scientific studies published this year linking the loss of Arctic sea to cold and snowy winters here in Europe.

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/02/arctic-sea-ice-loss-linked-to-cold-european-winters/

 

And

 

Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall

 

While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.short?rss=1

Edited December 13, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I think some folk have been hung up in the Arctic summer and failed to note that the jet has continued to be just as convoluted ( if 'shifted' along a bit so the troughs/peaks are impacting different regions in different ways to those seen recently?) and so just as much warm air is shifting further north as colder air is shifting further south? Once upon a time such 'extremes' were a very rare event but since the turn of the century I've lost count of the number of 'winter wonderland' piccies from southern locations. From Somalia to Greece to Spain to Israel/Syria to Egypt to Mexico and so on.

 

I seem to recall a paper exploring these direct exchanges of air, from sub tropics to pole and pole to sub tropics, back in 2005 or so? Something to do with the air heading straight North/South instead of NW/SE? Tri lobal to bi lobal polar vortex? ring any bells with others?

 

To still see folk acting as though this is 'one directional' weather ( with warm extremes absent from their reporting) is funny. Do they think they can fool others as easy as they can find themselves fooled?

 

Please folk ,check the data! We are a weather site and so can see global shots of current temperatures across our hemisphere. We are all 'weather geeks' so we know where to find our jet patterns. do check out ( against historical plots) how 'odd' things are these days. Do be sceptical and check it out for yourself!!!

Edited December 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Or the same weather pattern that is happening now occur in a mini ice age?

 

At last the usual non sequitur. For a minute I thought I was going to be disappointed.

[Gray-Wolf]

Those glaciers have other things to worry about. Seems that a new all-time low global temperature of -91.2 c has been recorded in Antarctica. Tad chilly,what?  http://german.ruvr.ru/news/2013_12_08/Rekordkalte-in-Antarktika-2913/

 At last I found where this comes from! 13,000ft up some Antarctic mountain! Sure is a low temp ( the lowest recorded) but not a 'record' in the sense of vostok and other sea level low temps.

 

Edit: Indeed Knocks, I don't know if they find posters like that a valuable addition to their numbers or whether they whince at such postings? At least folk like that don't mind highlighting that particular aspect of this supposed 'debate'?

Edited December 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Harve]

At last I found where this comes from! 13,000ft up some Antarctic mountain! Sure is a low temp ( the lowest recorded) but not a 'record' in the sense of vostok and other sea level low temps. Edit: Indeed Knocks, I don't know if they find posters like that a valuable addition to their numbers or whether they whince at such postings? At least folk like that don't mind highlighting that particular aspect of this supposed 'debate'?

Vostok isn't at sea level - it's at 3488m. I think the issue was that it was a temperature recorded via satellite and is as such disputable. Satellites have also recorded completely-discounted 70c temperatures in Iran, for example.

[knocker]

Thank God for some common sense in the debate.

 

 

America Needs Fatima, a project of the right-wing American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, is linking the tornadoes that hit Illinois this weekend to the state’s recent approval of a marriage equality bill. Robert Ritchie, the group’s executive director, is just asking the question:

 

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/13/new-right-wing-climate-theory-tornadoes-stronger-because-gays/

 

Moving out from God's shadow

 

Are Tornadoes Getting Stronger? New Research Hints yes…

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/13/are-tornadoes-getting-stronger-new-research-hints-yes/

[knocker]

The Seven Powers of Planet Earth

 

…that is, the Seven Main Power and Policy development and implementation “Complexes†which run Human Society here on Happy Planet Earth and are preventing serious action on both Climate Change and regarding the many issues and problems deriving from Limits to Growth on a finite planet,  while at the same time also creating numerous additional ones nearly as serious  (though perhaps not quite) ….

 

I believe there are seven main such “Power and Policy†“Complexes†which shape and determine policies and outcomes in the United States and elsewhere in the Western “democraciesâ€. And although somewhat differently,  also in countries like Russia and China and other… “emerging countriesâ€.  (and incidentally in what sense can a country with a more than 5000 year history be considered to be "emerging"...as it often is referred to?)

 

http://thefrogthatjumpedout.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-seven-powers-of-planet-earth.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited December 14, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

 

Are Tornadoes Getting Stronger? New Research Hints yes…

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/13/are-tornadoes-getting-stronger-new-research-hints-yes/

 

And this is why I have such concerns with the type of cold plunge that the majority of the U.S. is in at the moment? With gulf temps still high and humid it would only take them to be drawn into this mix to fuel some horrible weather?

 

What they said about the trend for more northern outbreaks is also highlighting the converse when the Jet rapidly introduces Gulf air to the north to only run into cold polar across the U.S. /Canada border regions?

[knocker]

The National Research Council is pleased to present this video that explains how scientists have arrived at the current state of knowledge about recent climate change and its causes. This is part six of a seven-part series, available on the National Academies channel.

 

 

 

 

By "bungee-jumping off the climate roller coaster," Richard Alley shows that Earth's climate doesn't always change gradually.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Though I like Mr Alley an awful lot that 'image' just didn't work for me? It almost left me with a KL sense of upcoming mega drop and not , what I very much suspect to be the case, a mega rise?

 

For a couple of years now I've been trying to explain why I have real fears for the next 'natural warming phase' due to both where the planet finds itself today and of the changes the next 'warming' must bring.

 

We have used up all of our 'climate slack' and so there is nothing left to moderate the next natural pulse of warming ( augmented ,as it is, by man made warming) and so the 'tipping point' that Richard spoke of is most certainly going to be breached.

 

As we've heard a lot of this current AGU the Arctic sea ice is now predicted to fail before 2030 and so on top of our extra Ooomph we also have the instant impact that this new area will bring in terms of lost reflection ( albedo flip) and added energy absorption ( and this on top of GHG's well ahead of those the last time we entered a natural warming phase). We have Oceans warmer , to depth, than we've ever known them so what type of 'natural warming' should we anticipate if we are to expect some of that energy to now return into the atmosphere?

 

I'm not talking a 10c jump here but even a modest 3c jump, over a matter of years, would drive climate chaos that would drive costs to humanity far above those suggested in mitigation proposals.

 

Whilst some quarters talk of climate scientists trying to bankrupt the world I believe the inaction we have seen over the last decade has already guaranteed the world that result.

 

It is beginning to look as though the 'cool drivers' are now spent and that we are looking at a rapid forming El Nino over the late spring/early summer that will serve as the introduction into the next neutral/warm phase and so the changes in climate that we already see are about to ramp up. If the Nino does not form then I really think the next Nino has to be another 'Super Nino' due to the excessive heat the ocean has amassed since the last Nino of any real duration ( though the last short one still matched the temps from the 98' super???). From where I sit I can see real issues fast approaching with no chance of mitigating the worst of the impacts any more.

[Gray-Wolf]

The usual emotive nonsense being posted this time in the New Research thread as GW lectures us all with one of his sermons, this time he's regurgitating the same old nonsense from this time last year with regards to a El Niño forming this summer and cool drivers being on there last legs.

 

I take it you accept the recent paper on Pacific influence on global temps SI? The 'decadal' nature of that forcing? Even with your insistence of the PDO -ve's start date being half way through it's life this still puts the end of the Pacific's influence at 2017 (by your reckoning)  which would be just in time for the first chance of the Arctic's 'perfect melt storm ' synoptic to re-appear?( on it's 10 to 20 year cycle) or are you also denying this cyclical natural phenomena?

 

Whichever way you look at it SI the cool forcings will end and the warm forcings will return but this time they return to a planet less able to 'smooth out' that forcing and , in fact, is set to augment that forcing further ( or did we not lose over 50% of Arctic ice volume since the last 'warm forcing' period? Did we not see the oceans amassing temperatures, to depth, beyond anything we've ever measured before?).

 

Surely the fact that we saw most of the Arctics losses under this 'cold drivers influence' makes you wonder just what we will see once back under warming drivers?

 

However you wish to try to deride the facts they are what we are to expect...... unless you can show us why this will not come to pass and the science that shows us this?

 

Kind of put up or shut up really (LOL)

Edited December 15, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2862370

 

The fact that you have posted something countless times doesn't of course make it correct. Rather it just emphasises the error.

 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo

Edited December 15, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for the data plots and link Knocks. The negative within the positive PDO last time around looks suspiciously similar to the temporary return to positive values after the 98' flip? Is the other side saying the last PDO phase is split by a small period of Negative PDO or do we have 'contrary' pulses within the main phase?

 

I've still not had a reply to whether we are to expect another 'perfect melt storm' across the Arctic before 2028 and whether this will prove a 'game changer' or not by unleashing a large Arctic Amplification signal into the equation or not.

 

Neither have they answered as to whether the recent study on the decadal mid Pacific forcing is just about to flip back positive or not or whether the next ENSO warming will be shoved into a 'super' event due to the length of time the ocean has been accruing heat through the recent run of Nina's?

 

I'm sure they'll get back to me.

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2862421

 

Interesting, in a 'Oh, people employ advisers who know their subject' kind of way.

 

Interesting, just like finding out who funds the GWPF for example. But the GWPF wont say...and it's a pound to a penny The Mail wont look into that, nor would any 'sceptic' here approve of that?!

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-46#entry2862631

 

Maybe yes, maybe no. But it certainly isn't down to global cooling: there hasn't been any!

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-46#entry2862655

 

A rather silly little graph though? One could just as legitimately (or not) claim that there's been a rise since 2008? So, we have a 5-year rise in global temperatures coupled with increasing Antarctic ice...What of it?

 

A perfect demonstration of why climatologists use thirty-year timescales...

[knocker]

 

Key climate change committe is in the pay of green business (interesting read)

http://www.dailymail...ised-bills.html

 

Of course it isn't interesting whatsoever and a good lesson in taking little notice of the Daily Mail. Cutting to the chase HotWhopper has had close look at this and I await reasonable rebuttal of her salient points. A quick word on HW first.

 

 

I'm a sixties-something woman with an interest in climate science.  I have a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours) and an MBA and work as a freelance consultant.  Other interests include photography and computers among other things.  (The blog cover pic is a photo of one of the three major fires in the past decade that surrounded our town and destroyed huge areas of forest and farmland, caused the death of a firefighter and killed two local residents.)

I started this blog to shine a spotlight on misogyny and the rejection of climate science. (Yes, they do seem to go hand-in-hand to some extent.)  I expect HotWhopper will cover more topics as it evolves.   It's not a high-brow blog, it's rife with bad puns and sarcasm and snark.  But the science it refers to is solid.

 

I won't reproduce all that she said here because the link is far easier but................................AW has jumped on the band wagon.

 

In a fit of recklessness Anthony Watts has posted an article with the title:

 

Anthony Watts @wattsupwiththat throws caution to the wind..

 

EXPOSED: David Rose rips UK climate change committee for being on the take

 

I've archived the WUWT article here and the David Rose article in Mail Online here.

 

UK Climate Change Committee "on the take"? Anthony Watts is accusing highly respected and prominent UK citizens of criminal activity.  He is probably leaving himself open to being sued by members of the UK Climate Change Committee if not the UK Government itself.  And maybe even by The Daily Mail and David Rose. Would any of them bother?  I don't know.

The Rose article stops short of alleging that the members of the UK Committee on Climate Change are "on the take" but he does skate very close to that, implying that there is potential for them to benefit, writing:

So which of the nine members does Rose allege "had or still have financial interests in firms that benefit from its rulings"?  David Rose draws a very long bow and is walking a thin line, and arguably is on the wrong side of that line.  Anthony Watts crossed right over the line.The Mail on Sunday’s investigation has established that four of its nine members have recently had or still have financial interests in firms that benefit from its rulings.

 

And to conclude the expose of the expose

 

Better yet, I expect still on David Rose's "to do" list is an investigative report into the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

 

The future is renewable but UK taxpayers still subsidise dirty coal

 

By the way, half of David Rose's article has nothing to do with the UK Committee on Climate Change. In the top half of the Rose article he describes how there is money to be made in renewables.  The slant he takes is that the money being made at present hinges on subsidies.  That may be so now but it won't always be the case.

What David Rose doesn't let on is that the fossil fuel sector in the UK is getting greater subsidies than wind power in the UK.

Nor does he let on to his readers that UK taxpayers will be subsidising dirty coal in the UK for years and years.

 

As usual the comments from the illiterati are informative.

 

In short it's a load of hot air avidly pounced upon by the deniers who feel the need to go into a feeding frenzy when poisonded scraps are thrown there way. A classic case of twisting something to fit a perverse ideology that cannot be sustained by sticking to the facts. Probably because there are so few of them.

Edited December 16, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2862994

 

Our definitions of rant seem to differ. It was merely an attempt to put into context the post on the other thread that the article is an interesting read, Then on reflection that could apply whichever way you look at it. I quite agree regarding 'denier' but it's precisely inaccurate and biased articles such as this that deniers jump on with glee as I attempted to point out above. By so doing they do the debate no favours.