Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

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.

 

I assume you are including the vast majority of eminently qualified scientists from various disciplines working in the field in your fatuous 'an assumption made only by a few hardcore proponents of AGW'? Not this moveable 17 years again. Haven't any of you deniers got a change of record?

[Devonian]

I assume you are including the vast majority of eminently qualified scientists from various disciplines working in the field in your fatuous 'an assumption made only by a few hardcore proponents of AGW'? Not this moveable 17 years again. Haven't any of you deniers got a change of record?

 

Oh, indeed. Science needs to be more careful what is discovers by observation and experiment. Because, the truth scepticism teaches us is that uncomfortable truth simply cannot be.

[knocker]

Oh, indeed. Science needs to be more careful what is discovers by observation and experiment. Because, the truth scepticism teaches us is that uncomfortable truth simply cannot be.

 

Yes there was quite a fuss about this 30 years ago and still continuing. It's beyond me that people can blithely ignore the fact we are destroying the planet along with the fauna and fauna. Mankind has much to answer for, A man on the moon. Big deal with a child still dying every 60 seconds from malaria.

 

By the mid 1980s, acid pollution had become one of the most critical of all environmental issues, testing the ability of policy-makers to respond to the tension between the priorities of economic growth and environmental management. It showed only too clearly the flaws in the methods by which policy was developed and implemented, but also underlined the multidimensional nature of many environmental problems.

 

First. it has a scientific dimension. The basic ingredients and chemical processes are well understood, but confirming and agreeing the causes, effects and scale of the problem has not been easy. Scientists disagree over the primary mechanisms and effects, monitoring and data gathering systems differ from one country to the next, and new theories about cause and effect are constantly emerging. This has complicated attempts to develop workable responses to the problem; governments for many years relied on fixed percentage reductions of the pollutants involved, but there has been a shift in recent years towards fixing those reductions to the effects pollutants have on the environment.

 

Second, acid pollution has a political dimension. It is the kind of long-term problem that demands more than the business-as-usual approach of conventional political processes, limited as they are by the electoral cycle and by the need to balance the competing demands of regional and industrial lobbies, and of different social and economic sectors.

 

Finally, it has an economic dimension. How much are we prepared to pay for a clean environment? Who is going to have to pay? Can conventional cost-benefit analysis be applied to questions as big and as nebulous as air pollution? While the costs of emission controls are relatively easy to calculate, it is much more difficult to quantifY the costs of dead forests, acidified lakes, lost crops, corroded buildings, and declining human health. And how are environmental management priorities logically to be weighed against other urgent problems, such as poverty, drugs, racism, or terrorism?

 

Despite all the questions and doubts, the governments of most Western industrialized states responded to air pollution problems during the 1980s, and substantial cuts were made in the emissions of several key pollutants. Public interest in acid pollution also tailed off as other more pressing issues-such as global warming and threats to the ozone layer-jostled for political attention. Since the amount of attention given to policy problems depends in large part on the media coverage they draw (and vice versa), the impression created was that acid pollution was no longer a serious problem. This, however, was a misleading impression.

 

While emissions of sulphur dioxide in most industrialized countries have fallen, the battle to reverse nitrogen oxide emissions is still far from won. New research has also shown that other pollutants-notably volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia-are involved in the chemical processes that lead to acidification. More worrying, emissions of many of these pollutants are growing in much of eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Edited December 23, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

Oh, indeed. Science needs to be more careful what is discovers by observation and experiment. Because, the truth scepticism teaches us is that uncomfortable truth simply cannot be.

 

Right on cue, here's an example http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-46#entry2871731

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-46#entry2872392

 

I take it you are referring to Arnold who was 17 when he was put down this year. I'm glad you find it amusing.

 

As to your earlier posts I note the links, that are not completely honest, all trail back to the bunch of nutters at CFACT. Any further comment is superfluous but still..................

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/

 

 

Devonian another example of Hanson tinkering ,Hanson knew that the 1930"s were warmer (before he adjusted them)

/graphs_v3/ What is interesting he knew that the USA had cooled since the 1930"s from a paper he wrote in 1999

http://www.giss.nasa...efs/hansen_07/. So because GW alarmist are loosing the argument they resort to yes tinkering with the data.

 

I would suggest you are treading a very thin line by accusing Dr. Hansen of 'tinkering' and 'adjusting' data to fit an agenda, I trust you can support these accusations without resort to CFACT. Do they bare scrutiny. I think not.

 

 

What is interesting he knew that the USA had cooled since the 1930"s from a paper he wrote in 1999

 

Interesting but so what?

 

Hansen et al. 1999

Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022, doi:10.1029/1999JD900835.

We describe the current GISS analysis of surface temperature change for the period 1880-1999 based primarily on meteorological station measurements. The global surface temperature in 1998 was the warmest in the period of instrumental data. The rate of temperature change was higher in the past 25 years than at any previous time in the period of instrumental data. The warmth of 1998 was too large and pervasive to be fully accounted for by the recent El Nino. Despite cooling in the first half of 1999, we suggest that the mean global temperature, averaged over 2-3 years, has moved to a higher level, analogous to the increase that occurred in the late 1970s. Warming in the United States over the past 50 years has been smaller than in most of the world, and over that period there was a slight cooling trend in the eastern United States and the neighboring Atlantic Ocean. The spatial and temporal patterns of the temperature change suggest that more than one mechanism was involved in this regional cooling. The cooling trend in the United States, which began after the 1930s and is associated with ocean temperature change patterns, began to reverse after 1979. We suggest that further warming in the United States to a level rivaling the 1930s is likely in the next decade, but reliable prediction requires better understanding of decadal oscillations of ocean temperature.

• Download PDF (15.5 MB)

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha03200f.html

 

 

So because GW alarmist are loosing the argument they resort to yes tinkering with the data.

 

Or updating the data. Not a bad prediction as it turned out but I'm still interested in what argument Dr, Hansen is supposed to be losing. I suspect it's the usual method of argument that avoids the need to prove someone is wrong by first assuming their claim is wrong and then explaining why the person should hold such a fallacious view.

 

Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6% of the Earth's surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean. [This is an update of Figure 6 in Hansen et al. (1999).]

 

 

Regarding the remark from your co-denier

 

 

Also your another one who likes to make derogatory comments about sceptics, misleaders and deniers, tut tut.

 

I flatly deny ever making derogatory comments about sceptics. I happen to be one myself. But I will hold me hand up regarding misleaders and deniers, a fine example of tautology by the way, of which CFACT, WUWT, Gosselin, Goddard, Monckton et al are fine examples. In fact the cap seems to fit on one or two heads much closer to home.

Edited December 24, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

So basically anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the theory then, so that's all sceptics. You and GW are both at the extreme end of the argument and both of you make derogatory comments about anyone who is sceptical at the magnitude of warming proposed at the middle/higher end of the scale. Then some of you complain why there are two separate threads. 

It's good to know you, at least, are without sin

Anyway, enough of playing the man eh? Because, as you well know, calling people 'extremists' is derogatory...

Edited December 24, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

 

You and GW are both at the extreme end of the argument and both of you make derogatory comments about anyone who is sceptical at the magnitude of warming proposed at the middle/higher end of the scale.

 

Can you give examples of when I have actually done that. My senility must be more advanced than I thought as I don't even remember discussing the subject. I find it a bit odd because I'm a tad sceptical of the high-end projections myself.

[Devonian]

Can you give examples of when I have actually done that. My senility must be more advanced than I thought as I don't even remember discussing the subject. I find it a bit odd because I'm a tad sceptical of the high-end projections myself.

 

Likewise, 2-4C man myself.

[UV-RAY]

Can you give examples of when I have actually done that. My senility must be more advanced than I thought as I don't even remember discussing the subject. I find it a bit odd because I'm a tad sceptical of the high-end projections myself.

So your views now fall into the lower ranges of any warming? As for examples of making derogatory comments well, see above!

Likewise, 2-4C man myself.

This is at the middle/higher end of projections and quite frankly looks completely at odds to where we are now and how such a rise may come about.

[knocker]

No. They always were. Still awaiting examples to justify your comment. And so you don't move the goal posts again this comment.

 

 

You and GW are both at the extreme end of the argument and both of you make derogatory comments about anyone who is sceptical at the magnitude of warming proposed at the middle/higher end of the scale.

[UV-RAY]

No. They always were. Still awaiting examples to justify your comment. And so you don't move the goal posts again this comment.

I will have to trawl though the forum in order to find any, but your inability to retract your comments about sceptics is telling.

[knocker]

I will have to trawl though the forum in order to find any, but your inability to retract your comments about sceptics is telling.

 

Inability? You mean I'm not mentally capable of doing so?...............retract................comments..............sceptics..................telling. Telling what exactly?

 

This is what I said so I can only assume you want me to retract this and make derogatory comments about sceptics. No dice I'm afraid but I'll stick with the rest of it.

 

 

I flatly deny ever making derogatory comments about sceptics. I happen to be one myself. But I will hold me hand up regarding misleaders and deniers, a fine example of tautology by the way, of which CFACT, WUWT, Gosselin, Goddard, Monckton et al are fine examples. In fact the cap seems to fit on one or two heads much closer to home.

 

[knocker]

DENIERS is what you said, selective amnesia eh!

 

Now come on, you of all people should no never to have denier and selective in the same sentence.

[Gray-Wolf]

S.I. do you have anything climate related to add to this thread or is it just " I'm telling teacher you called me names" that you're here for?

 

And 'Yes' I do believe we will suffer the higher end of the predictions for warming what of it? Are we no longer allowed opinions on this board?

 

To me it is increasingly plain that the resumption in warming will drive the Arctic sea ice seasonal and this change alone will drive a period of change to our climate system that is currently poorly modelled ( as was sea ice loss prior to the 07' crash?).

[Gray-Wolf]

So the sophistication of your understanding of climate is such that you expect GHG forcings to only appear in the surface temp record and that they will manifest as a constant ,year on year, increase in surface temp? Have I got that right S.I.? The only place on the planet that we need look to see the impacts of GHG forcing is the land surfaces?

 

You seem quite adept at ignoring anything that is a plus 90% contributor in this debate S.I. ? Be it scientific consensus, IPCC surety of man's influence, the energy that the oceans take up, the amount of energy that ice/snow reflect back into space?

 

Do you feel that missing 9/10ths of the picture ever does you a disservice ?

[knocker]

Just to lighten the scene. From HotWhopper

 

Well - it's Christmas Eve already.Happy Holidays to everyone.

 

Happy Holidays to Everyone

An Australian song

 

 

 

 

But of course the season wouldn't be the same without AW having a pop at Michael Mann.

 

Anthony Watts trips over his feet (in mouth) in his haste to stomp on Michael Mann

And just to emphasise not everyone accepts the paper on the sun I posted recently.

 

Anthony Watts gets more than the sun wrong at WUWT Edited December 24, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

And yet when the theory of retained heat in the oceans was put forward by Stephen Wilde many years ago proponents of AGW ridiculed it  and yet now they embrace much the same idea, I wonder if this is due to the global surface records

And,now the 'sceptics' are doing the very same thing.

[knocker]

Well he didn't exactly say that. I see he quotes dear old Don. Anyway people can read for themselves.

 

http://www.newclimatemodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/The-Unifying-Theory-Of-Earths-Climate.pdf

 

Or

 

Greenhouse Gases Can Cause Cooling!I thought that would attract attention. It’s the opposite of the general opinion so how can it be so?

 

 

Summary.Here I have set out reasons why the effect of greenhouse gases may be different depending on whether the surface beneath is water or land.Extra greenhouse gases have a warming effect over land but a possible cooling effect over water.The Earth’s surface is 70% water.Other characteristics of the Earth will affect the net position such as the distribution of the land and sea surfaces but given the predominance of ocean surfaces and the fact that most energy comes in at the equator which is mostly oceanic then it seems most likely that the net global effect of more greenhouse gases is actually a miniscule cooling rather than a miniscule warming.

 

Don't read the comment.

 

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2175.html

[UV-RAY]

And,now the 'sceptics' are doing the very same thing.

Not at all, the idea of the oceans retaining heat for lengthy periods was kicked out many years ago, but now when it suites it's all the rage. Double standards shouldn't take precedence over what is factual evidence, if one day you state oceanic heat content is short term you cannot then stake a claim stating the opposite.

[Methuselah]

Not at all, the idea of the oceans retaining heat for lengthy periods was kicked out many years ago, but now when it suites it's all the rage. Double standards shouldn't take precedence over what is factual evidence, if one day you state oceanic heat content is short term you cannot then stake a claim stating the opposite.

So, what if we were just wrong to discount it - what then?

[Methuselah]

Lol, well how convenient more so when your all running round like headless chickens trying to find the impossible. I await your findings with a wry smile on my face.

That's how science works, though. What would you prefer? We spend 10 years' investigating Russian steam pipes?

[knocker]

Not at all, the idea of the oceans retaining heat for lengthy periods was kicked out many years ago, but now when it suites it's all the rage.

 

Of course it wasn't.

 

Oceans store a much greater quantity of energy than the atmosphere, and the upper ocean in contact with the atmosphere holdsapproximately 30 times as much heat as the air above it. Thus for a given change in the heat content, the temperature change in the atmosphere will be around 30 times greater than in the ocean. Small changes in the energy content of the ocean could therefore have considerable effects on the climate of the region. Consequently, the large heat storage of the oceans often acts to control atmospheric changes, and the two media are frequently engaged in an intricate dance. This is especially so in the equatorial Pacific Ocean where the continuous interchange between air and sea is the source of the El Nifio phenomenon. Such dances make widespread footprints in the living world, as the Gulf Stream connection shows. Many of the impacts of climate change will be determined by the way the warming manipulates these interplays.

 

And what Wilde says is a country mile away from factual evidence. In fact most of it could have been written by Charles Dodgson.

Edited December 24, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

That's funny? I never discounted the oceans as a future heat source / In fact i think I banged on about what we ought expect when the long cycle 'cold bottom waters' resurfaced and didn't need as much 'heating' to bring them back to surface temp? ( i.e. where would the extra heat, no longer used in warming them, be spent?).

 

Did I miss the bit where science discounted the specific heat capacity of water?

 

And how , through the PETM among others, do we see an Arctic with temps over 10c during the long dark winter, if not by the properties that water has?

 

I'm confused, a.t.m., by the reluctance of Nares to freeze over ( and a good length of the NW Passage 'deep channel entrance)? could this have anything to do with the record amounts of energy the Arctic was able to absorb this summer and the current flowing out through Nares?

 

The oceans are our biggest concern ( I.M.H.O.) Not only does the warming to depth increase thermal expansion ( and so increase sea levels) but it guarantees warming for decades beyond our clawing back GHG's. The current massing of energy in the oceans will, eventually, impact atmospheric temps ( even if it is only when it naturally upwells again?) so all the 'missing heat' we hear folk moan on about will have it's presence felt sooner if not later.

 

To think that residents of our fair nation can be confused about the impacts that oceans can have on the lands beyond really does trouble me!

 

EDIT: Doh!!! Strawman........ at times you just forget he's not a real boy dontcha?

Edited December 24, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Oh they are coming out of the woodwork now defending the missing ocean heat content, yet all of them ridiculed this years ago.

 

You will be pleased to know they are still ridiculing Wilde. With very good reason I may add. I take it we can safely assume you agree with the two Wilde articles I posted above,

[knocker]

.

ENSO cannot be attributed to the pause, this has been pointed out to you in a previous post. Maybe it's hiding under your bed?

 

Well that's a surprise. Did you just pluck that one out of the air as nobody else has mentioned it. I can see now why you are Hon. Sec. of the Bulverist Society.