Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/denier-weirdness-russian-steam-pipes.html

 

Then the other side wonder why this chappie comes in for a fair whack of derision? 

 

UHI's were one thing! (as if they ever were a 'thing' and the knowledge of man's ability to radically impact 'local' climates did anything other than support the fact that his tinkering impacted the whole planet?) to go to these lengths to deny the changes across Eurasia over the past decade ( and , of course ,the impacts of an ice free ocean on the land adjacent) as 'russian central heating issues'??? To compound that with records that everyone uses showing the 'colder it gets' the less the issue presents........ I thought only Monkton could be so farcical!

Edited December 20, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

That made me laugh so much I had tears in my ears, Ian!  

 

I can only assume that Watts enjoys being a 'big fish in a minuscule pond'. 

[Gray-Wolf]

I really find it difficult to understand what drives his adherents to comment when so much info is freely available for them to check before making such asses of themselves???

[knocker]

I really find it difficult to understand what drives his adherents to comment when so much info is freely available for them to check before making such asses of themselves???

 

I'm on HotWhops e-mail list and had been debating whether to post this or not, The mans a joke.

[Methuselah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2CK3mdf8Yk

[knocker]

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort -

 

 

A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort. -

 

http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

Edited December 20, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

 

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort -

 

 

http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

 

 

Expect Anthony to decry the inequity of University funding........ everything should be bought and paid for by folk outside nasty ole Govt.

[knocker]

Beautiful, creative clarity: Entire IPCC Report in 19 Illustrated Haiku

 

http://daily.sightline.org/2013/12/16/the-entire-ipcc-report-in-19-illustrated-haiku/

[Gray-Wolf]

D'you think we'll get a limerick from the other place Knocks? (lol)

 

EDIT: Siberian hot water Pipes;

 

Edited December 21, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Arctic Report Card: Update for 2013 - Tracking recent environmental changes, with 18 essays on different aspects of the environment, by a international team of 147 scientists from 14 different countries, with an independent peer-review organized by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Arctic Council. More information and PDF of entire report at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPAc5D3Tow0#t=179

 

 

Satellites above the Earth are documenting a striking change in the Arctic. Not only is open water area increasing in the region, but adjacent land areas are growing “greener.†Since observations began in 1982, Arctic-wide tundra vegetation productivity has increased. In North America, the rate of greening has accelerated since 2005.

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/12/18/santa-may-or-may-not-be-white-but-the-arctic-is-increasingly-green/

[knocker]

Newsflash: They have let Gosselin out again.

 

 

Shattered Consensus! Survey Of Climate Science Blogs Shows 65% Think Science Is NOT SETTLED!

By P Gosselin on 15. Dezember 2013

Scottish Skeptic here has tabulated a ranking of climate science blog sites. To no one’s surprise Anthony Watts’s Watts Up With That? took the no. 1 spot, followed by Marc Morano’s Climate Depot. The ranking was done using internet site rating service Alexa.

First I’m really thrilled to see that NoTricksZone made it all the way to the number 13 14 spot, even bumping out RealClimate. I’m really surprised by this result. Not bad for something I’m doing on the side with the help of reader contributions such as those from Ed Caryl. Thanks to both loyal and occasional readers!

65% are skeptic or luke-warmer

Having done a quick count of the warmist sites, I came up with 48 from a total of 137. That’s crunches to be only 35%. That’s a far cry from the 97% the warmists like to try to have the rest of the world believe.

That means that almost two thirds of all climate science blogs are very skeptical or somewhat skeptical of the IPCC science (skeptic or luke-warmer). That’s hardly a consensus! Many of the skeptic sites are run by scientists and meteorologists…also showing that that “consensus among experts†is a complete myth.

Moreover, the top 20 sites are clearly dominated by skeptics.

 

HotWhoppers take on this nonsense. I love the graph.

 

Denier weirdness: The crank blog popularity contest

 

[Methuselah]

A warm November? Not according to this lot: http://www.weatherbell.com/videos/encoded/1387630105_2.ogg 

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-46#entry2869068

Keith, I've listened to it twice, I can't hear the word 'tinkering'.

 

He did (disgracefully imo) use the words 'fraudulent' and 'tampering' and got his graphed parameter types terribly mixed up (well, he does use 'Real science' 'nuff said...), which is typical of Bas****i's aggressive, inflammatory and confused style. Really, if you want to make sense of the world's atmosphere Joe isn't the man to do it for you - he just adds several levels of confusion to everything.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Dev! So where do the folk who dismiss global climate data go to find their info? Do they not find themselves 'blind'? Is this the point of the exercise? 

 

The changes that I've noted over this past 12 months ( compared to the pattern of extremes for the years post 07') has left me wondering if we are seeing either a move from the 'cool drivers' toward a period of neutral/warm driver dominance or that the low ice at the end of summer 2012 pumped the atmosphere enough to wriggle on the Jet patterns ( placing troughs where ridges were stationed and ridges where troughs were stationed?).

 

That said the recent report highlighting the 'warmth' of the Arctic this past summer might even suggest that any 'forcing' to the jet pattern in 2012 has had plenty of extra energy to maintain it this year even if ice area stayed higher than last year ( as the extra energy available to the atmosphere was still there?).

 

Whatever the reason global temps do appear to be very high esp. for a year with no Nino pushing up temps? Maybe some of the more knowledgeable 'Misleaders' ( the worst kind i.m.h.o., they know the score as well as any but utilise their understanding to misdirect and mislead ) can see that the 'perfect period' for misleading is now drawing to a close and that a resumption in the warming rates is now in the offing? They might also suspect that this time the rates will be further enhanced by the Arctic losses making the misleaders job impossible if they 'accept' global data on temp changes?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

 

 

A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,†or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.

- See more at: http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/#sthash.skoPZJ1B.dpuf

 

I do not like the move toward 'concealment' of funding and I am deeply suspicious of the drop off of 'public funding' appearing to be matched by this increase in 'dark' monies. 

 

Am I turning into a conspiracy nut????

[knocker]

Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows

 

Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.

 

The findings overturn a widely held scientific view that lengthy periods of warm and cold weather in the past might have been caused by periodic fluctuations in solar activity.

 

Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions. These tend to prevent sunlight reaching the Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-solar-key-climate.html#jCp

 

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium

 

The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere¹. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref.  1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly^{2, 3, 4, 5} (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained^{5, 6}, with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude^{7, 8, 9}. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions^{10, 11, 12, 13}. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions¹⁴ for the past millennium. Our methodology¹⁵ also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html

 

Edited December 22, 2013 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows

 

What, you mean, ahem, that a new study shows that solar is not a major cause of (modern) climate change? Of course, that's never been published before, that conclusion hasn't be reached since the 1990s by the consensus, and this is alarmingly new evidence?

Edited December 22, 2013 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Well not having read the complete study, nor all of the previous studies, I'm not really in a position to itemize any areas that diverge or are similar. I would have thought research can be undertaken from different perspectives and if the conclusions are similar this would add confidence to the said conclusion.  And I do know that many still maintain solar is the main driver of climate change and not CO₂ so perhaps new studies are not a complete waste of time. 'Alarmingly new' is maybe over egging it a trifle although it may be to the 'it's all down to the sun' brigade.

Edited December 22, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

What, you mean, ahem, that a new study shows that solar is not a major cause of (modern) climate change? Of course, that's never been published before, that conclusion hasn't be reached since the 1990s by the consensus, and this is alarmingly new evidence?

Of course, Spark...Does that mean that CO₂ is?

[Gray-Wolf]

So we haven't , over the past 6 months, had numerous posts threatening of another 'mini ice age' driven by a new 'maunder type minimum' Sparks???

 

I know you are sporadic in your appearances on the forum but some here are a little more consistent  in their attendance and, as such , have had to respond to such 'wishcasting' from the 'other place'.

 

The other thing the study highlights is the ability of sulphates and particulates to impact climate in a meaningful way. So  how much does the' Asian impact' currently cool our planet by and will their current bent for cleaner production /use of alternative energy sources make our next warming spurt even greater?

 

NASA put the impacts of pollution at 50% reduction of energy reaching the surface. Combine that with an ice free Arctic and much higher GHG levels and how do you see the resumption in warming panning out???

 

EDIT: Sorry jonboy , out of posts!

 

Not anybodies ability to post but to be current with the issues we encounter regarding 'solar forcing/maunder min's' et al? Sparks appears to think it ( solar influence) has been done to death so why another paper? Well we see so many folk saying things like " not AGW..... must be solar" or " wait for the low solar over the next few cycles" as if such is of consequence? Obviously sparks knows it is not of consequence and we that answer such posts know it is of little consequence but do the folk who continue to post on the subject ( or appear from the main forum to post that it's all solar?)? Maybe now they can move on and look at the issue without hoping it isn't what we have done that is at the roots of the issue? 

 

EDIT:EDIT: So we just give up? I have kids and I'm not giving up whilst I can still draw breath ( and I think I speak for every parent on here?).

Edited December 23, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Modeling our future climate

 

http://science360.gov/obj/video/f6a9e6fd-de7b-4e57-b27d-3fbf30d37544/modeling-future-climate

Edited December 23, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

So what has the first got to do with someone's ability to make a post?

 

 

So now if we clean up the planet and go green we are going to warm the world so whichever way we look at it we are doomed might as well accept our fate and get the barbie polished

 

Nowt, just (I suspect) GW meant some posts belong in the 'sceptic' thread.

 

If faced by a serious pandemic humanity wouldn't simply accept our fate, faced by a serious war likewise, but for some reason if, at some point, we're faced by serious man made climate change I've seen many sceptics suggest we should just, pathetically, await our fate. They have surprisingly little 'can do'.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

I believe such a response is merely for impact Dev ( however poor the taste of it?) ?

 

They first choose to deny the impacts of man, they then continue by trying to spread this denial to all they converse with (to the point that the bodies that serve the public find no reason to commit to mitigation?) and then, once all the warnings they wantonly ignored or pooh, poohed are made flesh they roll over like a puppy and play dead?

 

What manner of a man is that?

 

" I have of late, (but wherefore I know not) lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition; that this goodly frame the earth, seems to me a sterrill promontory; this most excellent canopy the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this Majesticall roofe, fretted with golden fire: why, it appeares no other thing to me, than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. 'What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; "

[Devonian]

I believe such a response is merely for impact Dev ( however poor the taste of it?) ?

 

They first choose to deny the impacts of man, they then continue by trying to spread this denial to all they converse with (to the point that the bodies that serve the public find no reason to commit to mitigation?) and then, once all the warnings they wantonly ignored or pooh, poohed are made flesh they roll over like a puppy and play dead?

 

What manner of a man is that?

 

" I have of late, (but wherefore I know not) lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition; that this goodly frame the earth, seems to me a sterrill promontory; this most excellent canopy the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this Majesticall roofe, fretted with golden fire: why, it appeares no other thing to me, than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. 'What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; "

 

Obviously, no compos mentis one simply awaits an avoidable fate. So, yes, they're being fatuous, they're disrespecting our legitimate concerns and evidence - the concerns a large body of carefully collected scientific evidence provokes. I play along to expose said

[Devonian]

But we are not faced with serious climate change as that is an assumption made only by a few hardcore proponents of AGW. So it's kind of an invalid point really, more so when global surface temps haven't risen for 17 years.

 

Note (but you clearly didn't...) my use of the words 'if, at some point'.

 

Btw, I don't know the future. I suspect we might see serious climate change - it is, it seems to me, the way the evidence points. I don't know we will, I don't know we wont. I'll leave such certainties about uncertainties to you

Edited December 23, 2013 by Devonian