Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

To me knocks there appears to be a pattern that develops and we've just seen it in operation above and on the other thread. We , on this thread , do try and insist that folk are more sceptical in their personal approach to the science and , as such, we always try to provide a paper trial for our postings so that folk can 'check it out' for themselves and see whether it stands up to their own scrutiny?

 

There appears ( to me) to be an element of 'the other place' who are not as thorough as they might be in this respect? They appear so motivated by the desire to see the basic AGW premise proven faulty that the grab at any headline ( from any source?) that appears to do this without first checking out the assertions? This leads them to having rebuttals ( supported by the science) from posters on this thread leaving feeling both attacked and shamed at appearing stupid for being so mislead. Rather than have this guide them they then end up even more driven to 'prove' that they were right in the first instance and so pull up ever more desperate attempts to pick away at the AGW premise? ( did we not just see this with the 'record Antarctic low temp' snowball into 'no warming in the Antarctic', 'Antarctic sea ice extension more relevant than land based mass loss'?).

 

We end up in the position we find ourselves with an element of posters who feel 'got at' because they appear unable to post without rebuttal. When the science fails they then resort to 'tactical' posts claiming they have been 'abused' by members posting from here. They decide certain 'nouns' are unacceptable and link general observations to themselves as some kind of personal attack.

 

From this side of the fence coming across such for the first time is upsetting ( none of us wish to 'hurt' others needlessly?) but after years of being subjected to such we seem to develop a thicker skin ( just as the mainstream scientists now appear to be doing?) and such 'upset' fades.

 

The downside of it all is that the posters from 'the other side' , who do not appear to learn to check their data, end up being the only ones to post from that thread? We see that thread turn into the testament to climate denialism that it is today? If anyone reads through it in it's entirety, from inception to last post, what useful climate information will they come away with? Are there any topics which have gone on to prove a level of mis-understanding in general climate science that has altered mainstream climate science study?  

Edited December 16, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Great article by talented illustrator. Nothing controversial about this.

 

http://skepticalscience.com/behindthelines_herschelexperiment.html

[Gray-Wolf]

Most excellent Knocks! This is science for the no brains! It does help folk (like me!) visualise all those tricky numbers. In truth this is my 'mind' in that i have to visualise any issue and not resort to the finesse of maths ( to my loss?) so this type of 'flow diagram' I find very comfortable with.

 

True for my ancestors too as the old 'bard' with recall stories, lasting days, by describing a 'picture' for each chapter of the tale. All you had to do was remember a series of pictures ( in great detail) to recount the epic. Folk should try this method when grappling with a subject? Just draw the interactions ( or as many as you can imagine!)....... that does not just mean just drawing the southern sea ice!!!!

Edited December 16, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not sure if anyone here participates on reddit. The science section has over 4 million subscribers, and they take a very pro-active approach when dealing with AGW deniers. Here's a link to the science section http://www.reddit.com/r/science

 

 

Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?

 

...Some issues, however, are particularly contentious. While evolution and vaccines do have their detractors, no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

 

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by “Big Green.†On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by “Big Oil.â€

 

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common “internet trolls†looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.

 

As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism†on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.

 

Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.

 

The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.

 

The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.

 

As expected, several users reacted strongly to this. As a site, reddit is passionately dedicated to free speech, so we expected considerable blowback. But the widespread outrage we feared never materialized, and the atmosphere greatly improved.

 

We discovered that the disruptive faction that bombarded climate change posts was actually substantially smaller than it had seemed. Just a small handful of people ran all of the most offensive accounts. What looked like a substantial group of objective skeptics to the outside observer was actually just a few bitter and biased posters with more opinions then evidence.

 

Negating the ability of this misguided group to post to the forum quickly resulted in a change in the culture within the comments. Where once there were personal insults and bitter accusations, there is now discussion of the relevant aspects of the research. Instead of (almost comically) paranoid and delusional conspiracy theories, we have knowledgeable users explaining complicated concepts to non-scientists who are simply interested in understanding the research. While we won’t claim /r/science is perfect, users seem happy with the changes made.

 

Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral.

 

So if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?

 

http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/

[Gray-Wolf]

So there you go Paul! A cure to this 'disruptive' threads conundrum? Just follow what reddit done did and it will all clear itself up nicely? no more 'duel threads' just reasoned, scientifically supported, threads?

 

Anyone care to guess who we'd lose??? (LOL)

Edited December 16, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

So back to the dark ages when if you dared to disagree with so called consensus death was a real possibility.

Some of those deamonised at the time who have been proven right over time: Copernicus 1473-1543, Brahe 1546-1601, Bruno 1548-1600, Galilei 1564-1642

So simple because we don't agree with you please don't treat us as someone to be removed!!!!!

 

Nope, simply insist that in a science debate that you utilise science and not hyperbolic, emotive, political conspiracies and personal attacks.

If someone can't back up their post with scientific evidence in a scientific debate, then they shouldn't be posting in that area.

 

All of which is very different to scientists, utilising scientific evidenced having their discoveries quashed by religious institutions.

It's an unfortunate truth that debates based on scientific evidence are too much for some.

[Methuselah]

I'll remind everyone in here, too:  

 

As part of a slightly different approach in the climate area, we're starting this plus 2 other threads with the explicit aim of the threads that members take part in the discussions that best match their own views, and not in the discussions which don't. 

 

The other two threads are:

Man Made Climate Change Scepticism Discussion

Natural Climate Cycles Discussion

 

Please keep to the thread (or threads) which best suit your views. This should allow for a more reasonable debate for all sides without the need for anyone to be defending their view, or attacking other views. As ever the forum guidelines apply in terms of not disrupting the forum with your posts, so please ensure that doesn't happen. 

 

This is an opportunity for people with similar views to get together, discuss views and related news, refine ideas and opinions and hopefully learn more about the subject at hand. It's also a chance for people who would like to learn more about the subject to read the differing views and  information, which may help them to form opinions and get involved in these or the more general discussions. So please treat these threads with respect.

 

Examples for this thread may be to discuss any studies/papers/media stories around man made climate change. along with current and future impacts of that change.

 

If you want to respond to a post from the 'other' thread, just copy the link across...That way, each thread has its own distinctive character and is easier to follow.

 

I'd rather move off-topic posts than delete them.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Where was the personal attack. Now the above is personal and derogatory talk about pram's and toy's

 

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, nor did I make any personal remarks, so how could anything I said be personal and derogatory?

 

My post was general. It's rather simple, if people cannot use scientific evidence in a scientific debate/discussion, then they should be posting elsewhere. If people can use evidence based reasoning and debate in a rational manner, then there'd far less problems.

[BornFromTheVoid]

When you quote a particular post it is fair to assume the comments are related to that post. If your post was truely intended to be general then don't use individual quotes.

Back to my original point in that using the examples I did in there time they were extolling new theories without the scientific evidence you so crave which went against the understood believes of their times and they were castigated by those in charge.

I was trying to make the point that simply because a point does not yet have scientific evidence does not automatically make it invalid. Science sometimes needs to catch up with thinking. Without open minds and thought processes then breakthrough's would not occur. So banning. blacklisting people simply because they dare think outside the box is plainly wrong.

 

I quoted your post because I was responding to points you made, not directly attributing everything to you. But it seems it was just a misunderstanding.

 

But the theories that the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, etc., brought forward were formed on observations, evidence and reasoning. The belief of the time was held in place with threats of torture and hellfire, and were based on ideology. The religious orthodoxy quashed anything that threatened it position, which scientific progression was doing and continues to do now.

 

Having a open mind and thinking outside the box is a great thing, it's the first step to new discoveries. But if somebody isn't willing to back up their ideas with research and evidence, dismisses anything that contradicts their ideas out of hand and resorts to baseless conspiracies and emotive rhetoric in order to justify their lack of evidence (I'm not attributing these to you!), then all they are doing is spreading ignorance and dragging discussion down to a flaming match. That, imo, has no place in a scientific debate and should be prevented as much as possible.

[jonboy]

I quoted your post because I was responding to points you made, not directly attributing everything to you. But it seems it was just a misunderstanding.

 

But the theories that the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, etc., brought forward were formed on observations, evidence and reasoning. The belief of the time was held in place with threats of torture and hellfire, and were based on ideology. The religious orthodoxy quashed anything that threatened it position, which scientific progression was doing and continues to do now.

 

Having a open mind and thinking outside the box is a great thing, it's the first step to new discoveries. But if somebody isn't willing to back up their ideas with research and evidence, dismisses anything that contradicts their ideas out of hand and resorts to baseless conspiracies and emotive rhetoric in order to justify their lack of evidence (I'm not attributing these to you!), then all they are doing is spreading ignorance and dragging discussion down to a flaming match. That, imo, has no place in a scientific debate and should be prevented as much as possible.

 

At least we agree on something. But equally sometimes just continually asking for evidence when a poster is trying to expand a thought doesn't help people to expand their knowledge and involvement in the debate. If anything this is what is wrong with the overall debate on Climate Change it has become so polarised from the extreme ends that those who are trying to find or challenge the accepted are drowned out by those who so convinced that they are right that no alternative can or will be accepeted. I will now go back to my own little corner and try and find sufficent evidence to back up my thought processes

[knocker]

 latest post at by Stefan Rahmstorf "The global temperature jigsaw"

 

 

Conclusion

Global temperature has in recent years increased more slowly than before, but this is within the normal natural variability that always exists, and also within the range of predictions by climate models – even despite some cool forcing factors such as the deep solar minimum not included in the models. There is therefore no reason to find the models faulty. There is also no reason to expect less warming in the future – in fact, perhaps rather the opposite as the climate system will catch up again due its natural oscillations, e.g. when the Pacific decadal oscillation swings back to its warm phase. Even now global temperatures are very high again – in the GISS data, with an anomaly of + 0.77 °C November was warmer than the previous record year of 2010 (+ 0.67 °), and it was the warmest November on record since 1880.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/

Edited December 17, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

It's fair enough to state that Galileo, Brahe, Wegener, Copernicus, and the like were ahead of their time and overturned centuries' of religion-/ philosophy-based naivety.

 

But comparing such early visionaries with Watts and Monckton et al, seems a tad optimistic; for Watts and Monckton to be correct, centuries' of mechanics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics (to name a few) would all need overturning, in one go...

 

Global Warming Theory is not a stand-alone discipline...

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-46#entry2864133

 

I agree, that data shows a big increase. You see, Keith, some of accept data and some of us only accept data which fits our world view.

 

Greenpeace? I've no idea what that reference is about.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

I also posted the same information, without the DM gloss in the refreeze thread earlier this morning that didn't seem to warrant a comment,

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/77910-arctic-ice-discussion-2013-14-the-refreeze/page-7#entry2863536

 

The significant quote as far as I can see is:

 

 

While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend.

“It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,†said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.

 

Edited December 17, 2013 by knocker

[jonboy]

It's fair enough to state that Galileo, Brahe, Wegener, Copernicus, and the like were ahead of their time and overturned centuries' of religion-/ philosophy-based naivety.

 

But comparing such early visionaries with Watts and Monckton et al, seems a tad optimistic; for Watts and Monckton to be correct, centuries' of mechanics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics (to name a few) would all need overturning, in one go...

 

Global Warming Theory is not a stand-alone discipline...

 

But I'm not comparing them but some on here as soon as they see the names of monckton or watts etc involved either directly or indirectly automatically go into hyper denial drive. Only time will tell but somewhere amongst all that is presently despised a gem of a nugget will prove a point and change how we view our ever changing Climate but then again it might not. And that's why I like to keep an open mind and read everything with a nice big jar of salt next to me!!!!! 

[Methuselah]

But I'm not comparing them but some on here as soon as they see the names of monckton or watts etc involved either directly or indirectly automatically go into hyper denial drive. Only time will tell but somewhere amongst all that is presently despised a gem of a nugget will prove a point and change how we view our ever changing Climate but then again it might not. And that's why I like to keep an open mind and read everything with a nice big jar of salt next to me!!!!! 

No 'hyper denial drive' jonboy...AGW Theory is, like all other scientific theories, only provisionally accepted; if something comes up which leads to its eventual overthrow then, so be it. In any case, the theory will - as with all others - need to adapt to new discoveries, and so on and so forth. But I'd be prepared to put money on no-one ever being able to demonstrate that doubling atmospheric CO₂ has no warming effect...

 

Now, if Watts, Monckton et al were to put forward a coherent theory in defence of what they claim, I would sit up and listen to it; but spurious FOI fiascoes, conspiracy theories about NASA deliberately sabotaging its own satellites and the like?

 

It all sounds like blatant obfuscation to me, I'm afraid...

[jonboy]

No 'hyper denial drive' jonboy...AGW Theory is, like all other scientific theories, only provisionally accepted; if something comes up which leads to its eventual overthrow then, so be it. In any case, the theory will - as with all others - need to adapt to new discoveries, and so on and so forth. But I'd be prepared to put money on no-one ever being able to demonstrate that doubling atmospheric CO₂ has no warming effect...

 

Now, if Watts, Monckton et al were to put forward a coherent theory in defence of what they claim, I would sit up and listen to it; but spurious FOI fiascoes, conspiracy theories about NASA deliberately sabotaging its own satellites and the like?

 

It all sounds like blatant obfuscation to me, I'm afraid...

 

They certainly don't help themseleves with some of the nonesense they come outwith but the same can be said on the other side too. Anyway onwards and upwards time to forelornly look for snow on the models!!!

[Gray-Wolf]

Where have we seen folk taking an extreme measurement to use as a baseline for the next set of measurements? Kinda rings a bell in my head???

 

I do remember a fair bit of natter in 2008/2009 regarding the 'Arctic recovery' we were seeing ( even though those were 'average years' and not driven by the kind of synoptics certain denialist groups blamed all of 07's losses on?) only for them to fall silent in 2010 when another 'average year' challenged for the record?

 

2012 was another 'average year' in the arctic ( weather wise...certainly no 'perfect storm'?) and yet we saw the ice fall a further 18%. This year has been an 'odd' one compared to those 'average ' summers and , apparently, pretty good at holding onto the ice? Do folk think us most likely to see another year, similar to 2013, next year or are we more likely to see an 'average' year? What about us seeing an 'above average year'? any chance of one of those randomly appearing? 

 

We have to 'expect' variability in our climate. We see cycles that bring 'warm years' and ones that bring 'cool years'. When we set that against the temp record we find that once these ups and downs have evened out that our planet is warming and the Arctic faster than average. Where does that leave the 'chances' of seeing a repeat 'cool summer' next year?

 

With so little ice left in the basin ( compared to the 1980's average volumes) you can surely see why I have concerns as to what a 'warm Arctic summer' will do to the ice? 

[jonboy]

Where have we seen folk taking an extreme measurement to use as a baseline for the next set of measurements? Kinda rings a bell in my head???

 

I do remember a fair bit of natter in 2008/2009 regarding the 'Arctic recovery' we were seeing ( even though those were 'average years' and not driven by the kind of synoptics certain denialist groups blamed all of 07's losses on?) only for them to fall silent in 2010 when another 'average year' challenged for the record?

 

2012 was another 'average year' in the arctic ( weather wise...certainly no 'perfect storm'?) and yet we saw the ice fall a further 18%. This year has been an 'odd' one compared to those 'average ' summers and , apparently, pretty good at holding onto the ice? Do folk think us most likely to see another year, similar to 2013, next year or are we more likely to see an 'average' year? What about us seeing an 'above average year'? any chance of one of those randomly appearing? 

 

We have to 'expect' variability in our climate. We see cycles that bring 'warm years' and ones that bring 'cool years'. When we set that against the temp record we find that once these ups and downs have evened out that our planet is warming and the Arctic faster than average. Where does that leave the 'chances' of seeing a repeat 'cool summer' next year?

 

With so little ice left in the basin ( compared to the 1980's average volumes) you can surely see why I have concerns as to what a 'warm Arctic summer' will do to the ice? 

 

The intresting part of this extra volume is that for many it was totally unexpected. I will be keen to see areasoned explanation as to why this may have occured rather than it being written off as a odd cool summer. Is the extra volume top driven ie more snow forming ice ontop or is it bottom driven ie less or no melt from below (cooler ocean benath the ice) Clearly the artic is at a cross roads and I know your gut says more melt whereas mine says we will see more growth in extent and volume as a result of solar driven cooling.

[Gray-Wolf]

From what I've read the 'cool summer' and the 'extra volume' go together hand in hand? The older ice was not transported into the areas it usually does ( to melt) and so survived?

 

Either we are seeing a move toward 'different patterns' in the northern hemisphere ( we did finally get a summer here and had no instances of flooding!!!) with areas that had been seeing warm extremes seeing cooler weather and 'areas recently under cooler synoptics' seeing a much more settled ,warm year? Current global temps ( and temps for the year) are also looking quite high for an ENSO Neutral year? or we have just seen a random bunch of weather across the northern hemisphere with no indications of 'change' to a different pattern than of late?

 

For me the 'Arctic worry' is the rate of loss through Fram since Sept? we have seen ice rebuild but we have also seen good ice go south? Should this pattern persist then we may see our gains start to drain out, over winter, through Fram as we used to see in the 80's?

[jonboy]

From what I've read the 'cool summer' and the 'extra volume' go together hand in hand? The older ice was not transported into the areas it usually does ( to melt) and so survived?

 

Either we are seeing a move toward 'different patterns' in the northern hemisphere ( we did finally get a summer here and had no instances of flooding!!!) with areas that had been seeing warm extremes seeing cooler weather and 'areas recently under cooler synoptics' seeing a much more settled ,warm year? Current global temps ( and temps for the year) are also looking quite high for an ENSO Neutral year? or we have just seen a random bunch of weather across the northern hemisphere with no indications of 'change' to a different pattern than of late?

 

For me the 'Arctic worry' is the rate of loss through Fram since Sept? we have seen ice rebuild but we have also seen good ice go south? Should this pattern persist then we may see our gains start to drain out, over winter, through Fram as we used to see in the 80's?

 

The weather pattern this year did remind me of the 60's/70's when the season's where a lot more defined. Sometimes a really cold early winter followed by a warm or even hot spring wet thundery summer but often a warm late spell. The one think I haven't seen yet is frosty cold bonfire nights. So perhaps we are seeing a shift back in the pattern back to then.

One question regarding Fram how far back do the records go regarding rate of loss in this area? Certainly the weather systems this year appear to favour the route for loss and if we are in a transient period perhaps its to be expected but equally we are seeing better growth (not great)  elsewhere than we have seen in recent times.

[Gray-Wolf]

We have good records of export through Fram? I think a quick google will show you papers and info that run back over 50yrs? From memory I think the latest array runs from 1997? until present with different depths sampled by tethered equipment every 50km or so across the straight?

 

We have seen changes since the 1950's but we also seem to have spotted a cyclical short term pattern that might link in with this years 'different' weather patterns over that side of the basin?

 

The first time I saw the animation of the Arctic ice losses ,over the past decade or so,then  the importance of Fram in removing the 'older' ,better ice was plain (and the speed at which it accomplished the task jaw dropping!) If ever you needed to see just why we are headed for a seasonal basin then that animation shows it quite well!!!

Edited December 18, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Here's one for the other thread to digest;

 

http://www.alternet.org/were-looking-end-humanity-and-it-might-happen-sooner-you-think?page=0%2C1&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

 

 

We're Looking at the End of Humanity -- And It Might Happen Sooner Than You Think

There are perfectly serious scientists -- not the majority of all climate scientists by any means, but thoughtful outliers -- who suggest that climate change isn’t just really bad; it’s catastrophic.

 

                                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

not too long ago they'd have an epi fit if I'd mooted that this is where we appeared to be headed! now, year after year, it appears more 'moderate' bodies are coming to the same extreme conclusions? The worst bit ( for me) is that due to inaction ( fueled by the dis/mis-information of the 'Climate Misleaders' ) we appear locked into future temps that sail too close to the 2c threshold for comfort?

 

The debate will go on ( I'm sure) and the outputs will continue at todays rates ( I'm sure) and so we will place far to many GHG's into the atmosphere to avoid the 2c threshold (I'm sure) and we did tell you so ( I'm sure?)

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Global sea ice 2nd highest highest ever recorded highest for 25yrs http://t.co/JYxFKrvxyd

 

It appears the 'headline news' KL posted over on the other thread is not as posted as the below record amply highlights?

 

Maybe the 'highest for the time of year' would be more apt? As it is melt season across the south is now well under way and so we shall see how well the high sea ice levels hold up this year? In the north we appear well below the average for the time of year ( again!).

[knocker]

In U.S., Winters Warming but Precipitation More Nuanced

 

The Winter Solstice arrives on Saturday, marking a headlong plunge into winter. Looking at the past 42 years of data shows that almost the entirety of the Lower 48 has warmed over the season. Precipitation trends show more regional differences, though.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winters-warming-in-the-u.s.-precipitation-more-nuanced-16868