Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

Some folk buy the gaurdain .. others think the Male on Sinday is a newspaper   sell lav. ie

 

Indeed. Some people like to be informed, some like to be entertained, etc, etc. (Just to be clear, I don't buy any newspapers!)

 

The changing climate is an issue best analysed through scientific methods. It's not the kind of thing where you should be able to disregard mountains of evidence because it doesn't fit in with how you feel about the issue, such as with the "CO2 is just a trace gas" argument.

[Methuselah]

Indeed. Some people like to be informed, some like to be entertained, etc, etc. (Just to be clear, I don't buy any newspapers!)

 

The changing climate is an issue best analysed through scientific methods. It's not the kind of thing where you should be able to disregard mountains of evidence because it doesn't fit in with how you feel about the issue, such as with the "CO2 is just a trace gas" argument.

Indeed. It's similar to a rape trial, IMO: however eloquent and plausible the prosecution's case may sound, if the DNA evidence proves that the rapist isn't the defendant, the case must be thrown out...No amount of flowery rhetoric will ever change the fact...

[Gray-Wolf]

And, as Was 'removed' from that thread, the small circle of area included within the 80N is not a fair representation of the 'arctic Circle' esp. with the 'melt issues' keeping temps there lower than they would be were 'melt' not occuring? Surely if we saw temp spikes there over summer similar to the winter ones we would need to worry!!!

 

EDIT: And as for talks of a 'cooldown' or pause in global warming we had this on july 3rd from the WMO;

 

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

Edited July 5, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

2 highest level for Antarctic  sea ice ever  recorded GW causes warming and cooling or is it simply getting colder in the Antarctic

 

 

Yes and no. The Antarctic is a large place.

 

Satellites confirm half-century of West Antarctic warming

 

The Antarctic Peninsula juts into the Southern Ocean, reaching farther north than any other part of the continent. The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.

 

Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."

 

The finding is the result of a novel combination of historical temperature data from ground-based weather stations and more recent data from satellites. Steig and colleagues used data from each record to fill in gaps in the other and to reconstruct a 50-year history of surface temperatures across Antarctica.

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/nsfc-sch012209.php

Edited July 5, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

You make a personal attack on GW and then post a video from a Canadian journalist.

 

Lets have a look at the IPPC leading lights take a look at the bunch of charlatans https://www. youtube...GPqV_ Fwo4Q …

 

 

Climate change will be slower than thought, study shows – or does it?

 

New climate study just one step to understanding future climate change, but Australia is already feeling the heat

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/24/study-climate-change

 

Or.

 

Climate tug of war disrupting Australian atmospheric circulation patterns

The study, in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, demonstrates that mid-latitude high pressure zones (30^oS-45^oS) are being pushed further into the Southern Ocean by rising global temperatures associated with greenhouse warming. This is despite more frequent occurrences of strong El Niños in recent decades, which should have drawn the high pressure zones in the opposite direction toward the equator.

 

 

http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Climate-tug-of-war-disrupting-Australian-atmospheric-circulation-patterns.aspx

Edited July 5, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Oh a quote and no link. Are you a mimic?

 

Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford, interviewed by the BBC this week about global temperatures, has finally admitted that:-

 

“no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000â€

 

Finally a bit of honesty.

 

Thank you, Professor.

 

 

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/myles-allen-admits-nobody-forecast-temperature-standstill/

 

From the same link.

 

Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford told BBC News: "We predicted the temperature of this decade using a conventional detection and attribution analysis and data to 1996 (when lots of people were arguing there wasn't even a discernible human influence on global climate), and nailed it to within a couple of hundredths of a degree.

 

"There were plenty of solar enthusiasts back in the 1990s who were attributing the observed warming since the 1970s to a brightening sun - which didn't really work out when we moved into an extreme solar minimum and still saw the warmest decade on record.

 

He added: "It's only a single data point (and no-one predicted the shorter-timescale lack-of-trend we have seen since 2000) but it's still worth noting. Let's see what the next decade will bring."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23154073

 

I think you should stop having a pop at GW and stop cherry picking.

Edited July 6, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Not too sure where to put this.

 

AGU Chapman Conference -- Climate Science: Michael Mann

[pottyprof]

From now on if anyone posts to disrupt any threads they will earn a week suspension automatically.

 

There will be no further warnings.

[Crepuscular Ray]

I'm not sure whether someone has already posted a link to this new WMO report about recent global temperatures in relation to those of the preceding decades:

 

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

[Methuselah]

Interesting read, CR...Food for thought.

[knocker]

I'm not sure whether someone has already posted a link to this new WMO report about recent global temperatures in relation to those of the preceding decades:

 

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

 

Ed Hawkins posted a small comment on this CR.

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/wmo-report/

[Crepuscular Ray]

Ed Hawkins posted a small comment on this CR.

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/wmo-report/

 

And the arguments one way or the other that resulted are fascinating.

[Polar Maritime]

[Methuselah]

An interesting appraisal of all things hockey stick: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html#.UdqKZNLVCuI

[Methuselah]

Seems to sum things up quite well?

[knocker]

Michael Mann Blog.

 

FiveThirtyEight: The Number of Things Nate Silver Gets Wrong About Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html

[knocker]

Rates of change in global temperatures

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/rates-of-change/

Edited July 9, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

So what do we make of this, then? http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C4045%3ATETWIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

[Devonian]

So what do we make of this, then? http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C4045%3ATETWIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

It's ten years old - I don't know why it's popped up again now? Probably being promoted somewhere.

 

Anyway, they used a climate model so surely that means it's rubbish? But, more seriously, what it shows is that the Arctic is a place where little forcings or triggers can cause big changes. So, when mankind adds a rather big forcing to the whole atmosphere expect the biggest changes to be up there. Which is what we're seeing.

[Crepuscular Ray]

It's ten years old - I don't know why it's popped up again now? Probably being promoted somewhere.

 

Anyway, they used a climate model so surely that means it's rubbish? But, more seriously, what it shows is that the Arctic is a place where little forcings or triggers can cause big changes. So, when mankind adds a rather big forcing to the whole atmosphere expect the biggest changes to be up there. Which is what we're seeing.

It popped up in the sceptics thread. Given the new rules perhaps the Man in Black wondered whether it might be a good idea to copy it here for balance and discussion.

[knocker]

Some interesting stuff here but it takes time to plough through.

 

AGU Chapman Conference on Climate Science Communication

 

A couple of weeks ago, there was a small conference on Climate Science communication run by the AGU. Both Mike and I attended, but it was very notable that it wasn’t just scientists attending – there were also entertainers, psychologists, film-makers and historians. There were a lot of quite diverse perspectives and many discussions about the what’s, why’s and how’s of climate science communication.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/agu-chapman-conference-on-climate-science-communication/

Edited July 9, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

Some interesting stuff here but it takes time to plough through.

 

AGU Chapman Conference on Climate Science Communication

 

A couple of weeks ago, there was a small conference on Climate Science communication run by the AGU. Both Mike and I attended, but it was very notable that it wasn’t just scientists attending – there were also entertainers, psychologists, film-makers and historians. There were a lot of quite diverse perspectives and many discussions about the what’s, why’s and how’s of climate science communication.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/agu-chapman-conference-on-climate-science-communication/

I tell you what that Richard Alley, he's great isn't he! I learn a load every time I listen to him.

[knocker]

So what do we make of this, then? http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C4045%3ATETWIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

 

Well this paper made this of it.

 

Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950

Satellite observations that provide an hour by hour picture of every part of the Arctic make it easy to forget that large areas of it had not even been even explored 80 years ago – let alone its ice extent minutely observed.  This paper explores the controversy surrounding the period 1920-1950, which was a period of substantial warming in the Arctic.

 

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

[knocker]

hi knocker

 

maybe criticism

 

but was peer reviewed

 

 

Hi John, I've replied here otherwise it will be a back-of-the- legs job. One criticism I read.

 

Both Fraser and Karoly also question whether the paper, which was also published on the pre-press website Arxiv.org, would have been published in a journal that was peer-reviewed by climate scientists.

 

"This research would not have survived peer-review by experts in the area," says Karoly.

 

"It has been published in a journal which appears to not normally publish articles on climate change science. But, because it has been peer-reviewed, it does need to be considered."

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/06/03/3773350.htm

Edited July 10, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Reply to John. (this is like talking through a third party). I assume the posts are peer reviewed?

 

Response to knockerThere's the problemUnless it agrees with the scientist it would not have been peer reviewed. So their right and that's end of subject.Would that not put thee peer review under question.

 

 

That's not an accurate quote.

 

"It has been published in a journal which appears to not normally publish articles on climate change science. But, because it has been peer-reviewed, it does need to be considered."

 

 

And

 

"One has to be very wary of putting too much weight on the contrary views of a single scientist before those views have been properly exposed to scrutiny by the IPCC process -- arguably the finest scientific review process available -- far more stringent and demanding than any single scientific journal peer-review process."

 

Edited July 10, 2013 by knocker