Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Styx]

As far as I can tell it was this chap

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Df4vAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA430&dq=%22polar+vortex%22&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22polar%20vortex%22&f=false

 

I suspect he's dead now.

 

I meant to say who reintroduced the term which gave it popular currency for the first time.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Styx

[VillagePlank]

I clearly said "popular currency".

 

"Whoever was the originator of the term "polar vortex", a term which got popular currency ..."

Edited March 14, 2014 by Sparkicle

[Styx]

Stop being a smart ar##.

[knocker]

Whoever was the originator of the term "polar vortex", a term which got popular currency for the first time, gets credit in my view for the hyped up media obsession which followed.

 

I'm not sure that you can pin down the misuse of the term to one person Styx. I suspect it was fed to the media who then embarked on a feeding frenzy.

 

The correct definition.

 

 

A planetary-scale mid- to high-latitude circumpolar cyclonic circulation, extending from the middle troposphere to the stratosphere. The Northern Hemisphere vortex often features two centers—one near Baffin Island and the other over northeast Siberia—with analogous circumpolar asymmetry atypical in the Southern Hemisphere. The westerly airflow is largely a manifestation of the thermal wind above the polar frontal zone of middle and subpolar latitudes. The vortex is strongest during the winter in the upper troposphere and stratosphere when the pole-to-equator temperature gradient is strongest. The stratosphere component of the circulation may be referred to separately as the “polar stratospheric vortex.†In summer, the strongest westerly circulation is largely confined to the troposphere, and the polar stratospheric vortex reverses in the upper stratosphere because of solar heating during the polar day.

 

http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

 

To put this ‘Polar Vortex' into perspective there was a similar outbreak on 12/25/1983. The vast polar plunge is very similar in almost every way to the current one. The cold air did extend a little farther to the south and east in the 80sm but the coldest air was not as pronounced.

 

But now it's a 'hot topic'. I wonder why.

[VillagePlank]

"Whoever was the originator of the term "polar vortex", a term which got popular currency ..."

 

I note that you edited your post 'quick'

 

I will add, not personally, to you: this thread has just about vilified anyone with any dissenting views. It is a communally edited thread where views that do not match the orthodoxy are not posted. I think the other thread is worse for the avoidance of all doubt.

 

I feel completely vindicated after spending over an hour looking at this threads focus on the enemy rather than the science.

 

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

Edited March 14, 2014 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

I note that you edited your post 'quick'

 

I will add, not personally, to you: this thread has just about vilified anyone with any dissenting views. It is a communally edited thread where views that do not match the orthodoxy are not posted. I think the other thread is worse for the avoidance of all doubt.

 

I feel completely vindicated after spending over an hour looking at this threads focus on the enemy rather than the science.

 

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

 

What is the orthodoxy here then?

Would you mind providing examples of this vilification of people with alternative views? Aren't there plenty of other threads focused on the science and data?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi BFTV!

 

I think ,at times, some folk feel that the Science we post and link to here is all part of some concerted effort to prove AGW.

 

The reality is that lots of Science is being done across many fields and the evidence that they discover just happens to show what is occurring in the real world?

 

This is no 'science conspiracy' to push AGW as a thing it is just that the world is providing evidence that AGW is real and is impacting the world we all live in.

 

As far as 'Vilification' ? As far as I am concerned the known 'Climate Misleaders' need exposing for the crooks/liars that they are? Why should such creatures be dealt with any differently? The fact that they have corrupted the understanding of so many people needs addressing and putting right does it not?

 

I am sure that any view is examined in the same way by regulars of this thread? If it is found to be robust enough to survive sceptical examination why should it not be?

Edited March 14, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Demonstrating climate variability

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/demonstrating-climate-variability/

[knocker]

One picture is worth a thousand words. How very true.

 

 

Looking more like Mordor than planet earth - Canadian tar sands mines larger than Greater Manchester dominate the landscape next to the Athabasca River, with no proven way to reclaim the boreal forest. Oil sands are a mixture of bitumen and sand. The province of Alberta has proven reserves of 174 billion barrels of oil, second in size only to Saudi Arabia. (WWF)

Credit: © Rezac / WWF-UK Source: WWF-UK

 

Hansen: "This is game over" and Anthony Watts tells a big fat lie!

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/hansen-this-is-game-over-and-anthony.html

Edited March 14, 2014 by knocker

[Styx]

I note that you edited your post 'quick'

 

I will add, not personally, to you: this thread has just about vilified anyone with any dissenting views. It is a communally edited thread where views that do not match the orthodoxy are not posted. I think the other thread is worse for the avoidance of all doubt.

 

I feel completely vindicated after spending over an hour looking at this threads focus on the enemy rather than the science.

 

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

 

Please, take a look at your own manner in responding to people's posts before you start to make judgements about bias in others!

 

I made a moderate and balanced response in the deniers thread recently, and you twisted my words splendidly to paint me as using the words of an ecological terrorist making a rallying call, and being a supporter of untruths, in order to promote an ideological agenda. Yes you did. You know what i am talking about here, I am not going to spend time writing another post rephrasing what I've just said.

 

If you have a view on extreme Green ideology make it, but don't skim through a post such as mine, pick out your own juicy bits and by taking the post out of context, and then quote it by representing me as an antagonist to strengthen your own viewpoints.

 

!

[knocker]

Global Warming "Hiatus" and the Global Heat Distribution Engine

 

Over at SkepticForum I continue hearing echo's of David Rose's erroneous claim that 'global warming stopped 16 years ago' and it makes no sense to me how such a disingenuous hoax lives on and on.

 

When I hear someone write or say there's been a pause in global warming, or some hiatus, I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't have any conception of our planet's dynamic multi-layered climate system, it's sad. Worst is when they refuse to look at genuine information and learn from it.

If these types had a conception of heat and energy moving throughout our planet, they would appreciate that the global ocean plays a huge roll in heat absorption and circulation.  That's why I've collected this series of excellent educational videos to share.

 

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/global-warming-hiatus-globalheatengine.html

[Gray-Wolf]

In some ways I'm looking forward to the nino forming as even on the skeptic forums folk are talking about the event. they tend to overlook the 'warming' we would see from the nino and focus on the 'cooling' post nino. I have to wonder if the heat in the tropical oceans will mean that a descent into a Nina, post nino, will occur or whether warmer waters at depth will just be forced up and limit such an event?

 

When we look at the Super typhoon it was being 'fed' from over 100m down so the normal 'cool wake' of churned waters where the typhoon had past did not appear. Is this what the warming of the tropical oceans could leave us with post Nino?

[Gray-Wolf]

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

 

Maybe this would be a way of protecting us all?

[knocker]

From the archives: 2C and 400ppm

 

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2014/03/15/from-the-archives-2c-and-400ppm/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[knocker]

New York Times op-ed asks wrong questions on climate change and California drought

 

A new opinion piece in the New York Times downplays the many lines of scientific evidence connecting climate change to the ongoing drought in California. The op-ed by NOAA’s Dr. Martin Hoerling addresses only the question of direct causation, and fails to address the fact that climate change is already making droughts worse, including the California drought.

 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/03/12/new-york-times-op-ed-asks-wrong-questions-on-climate-change-and-california-drought/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[knocker]

Prof. Inez Fung: "Anatomy of a Climate Model" the video

Climate models are constantly being misrepresented and the public has been sold impossible expectations by folks more interested in power-politics than learning about our planet.

Climate models are tools.  Tools to help scientists understand dynamics in action.  No one has ever pretended they could accurately prediction the future.  They inform us about dynamics and trends.  We human minds need to figure out the rest.  

One of the slickest, and sickest, tricks folks like McIntyre, Sen. Inhofe, Morano, Heartland, and pals have pulled off, is misleading the public into believing that if climate models weren't perfect they deserved ridicule.  

Sadly the folks that attack climate models the most, are least interested in learning about them.  But, there must be people who do want to learn, 

I tell myself.

That is why I'm sharing this excellent talk by Professor Inez Fung. 

 

{Video starts a little late and first words are chopped off - she's talking about the coordination between many science teams scattered around the globe...}

 

 

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/inez-fung-anatomy-climate-model-video.html

[knocker]

Injecting politics into education-an example.

 

Wyoming first state to block new science standards

http://trib.com/news/local/education/wyoming-first-state-to-block-new-science-standards/article_5d0ec624-6b50-5354-b015-ca2f5f7d7efe.html

[knocker]

Why is communicating climate change science hard?

 

Why is science communication hard? Why don’t people blindly accept what scientists tell them? In a time when 97% of climate scientists agree about human-caused climate change^[1], why do some people still think that a single cold winter disproves global warming? Is it because scientists are stuffy academics, tight in their ivory tower? Because scientists aren’t very good at disseminating and knowledge and communicating information? Or because information is not available in an accessible, engaging format, with key data in pay-walled publications?

 

http://bogology.org/2014/03/10/why-is-communicating-climate-change-science-hard/

[knocker]

Quite damnable really as I see they have now enveigled nature into the conspiracy. Is there no end to this subterfuge?

 

Rocky Mountain wildflower season lengthens by more than a month

 

A unique 39-year study of wildflower blooms in a Colorado Rocky Mountain meadow shows more than two-thirds of alpine flowers have changed their blooming pattern in response to climate change. Not only are half the flowers beginning to bloom weeks earlier, but more than a third are reaching their peak bloom earlier, and others are producing their last blooms later in the year. The bloom season, which used to run from late May to early September, now lasts from late April to late September, according to University of Maryland Biology Professor David Inouye.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-rocky-mountain-wildflower-season-lengthens.html#jCp

Edited March 17, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/Everyone with an interest in climate should read this statement from former greenpeace Patrick Moore.Crucially: 

 

I really do not believe that anyone with any understanding of current science, and a working knowledge of Geology, could think this piece anything other than well dressed garbage?

 

As a test would anyone who pushed forward this piece care to disclose their understanding of the place evolution was at at such a time and also the strength of our young Sun compared to it's strength today?

 

I would guess that in the cramming they would obviously need to find their evidence to reply the respondent will finally come to understand just how pathetic their current understanding of our world, and its workings, is and not embarrass themselves by an attempt to defend the blurb linked to.

 

The saddest thing is that many folk would not bother to be 'sceptical' enough to discover the truth and so remain in their 'faux confidence' that " Every little thing is gonna be all right......"

[knocker]

Scientists Sound Alarm on Climate

 

Early in his career, a scientist named Mario J. Molina was pulled into seemingly obscure research about strange chemicals being spewed into the atmosphere. Within a year, he had helped discover a global environmental emergency, work that would ultimately win a Nobel Prize.

 

Now, at 70, Dr. Molina is trying to awaken the public to an even bigger risk. He spearheaded a committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society, which released a stark report Tuesday on global warming.

 

The report warns that the effects of human emissions of heat-trapping gases are already being felt, that the ultimate consequences could be dire, and that the window to do something about it is closing.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/scientists-sound-alarm-on-climate.html?_r=2/?source=socnet_tw_CC_20140318_ofa_scientists-sound-alarm-on-climate.html?_r=2_ofa_1&utm_medium=socnet&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=CC&utm_content=20140318_ofa_scientists-sound-alarm-on-climate.html?_r=2_ofa_1

Edited March 18, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Unless my memory is playing tricks Dr Sawyer was head of the Napier Shaw Laboratory at Dunstable in 1959 when I was there as a gopher.

 

A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972

[knocker]

Kevin Anderson on the coming disaster

 

[knocker]

In his recent talk on climate models Gavin Schmidt finished thus.

 

“The future is unknown. There are choices,†Schmidt concludes. We have options, we have decisions to make, and while not all of these can be decided simply by looking at models, those models provide a useful and important basis for action. In conclusion, he quotes Sherwood Rowland, who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1995: “What is the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?†That, Schmidt reminds us, is up to us.

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it we have a couple more years of data to add into his graphs Knocks? Global peak outputs by 2014/16 to stay below 2c??? 

 

When I post here I'm often left with the impression that folk find my views 'extreme' yet , by the reality painted in this lecture, I'm pretty mild in my projections of the future!

 

I'm sure that we still all believe that a 2c rise is our last and best chance of not having climate change rapidly overwhelm our planet and its abilities to care for its Human population. It appears all Nations are committed to keeping temps below that 2c level.

 

The facts show us that global govt.s are all planning for an emmisions future well in excess of the 2c figure ( even as they mouth their commitment to it) and that we cannot see yet when the planet will reach its peak emmisions. With most of India and Africa yet to start down the development pathway I'd suggest that we will be a number of years beyond 2016 when peak emmisions are reached and reductions become possible?

 

When I see the sceptic massaging emissions projections, and focussing on the lowest trajectory as though it were the path we are engaged on, I have to despair! When we all see the figures of current emissions it is plain that they are running above the plotted B.A.U. line. Many of the graphs I see used are 3 or 4 years old and so it is easy to scribble in the 'real' emissions figure on top of the " worse case scenario" and see how much worse than that the past few years have been.

 

Never mind the longer we leave it the sharper cuts will need to be! the more we exceed the B.A.U. figure then the worse any remedy has to be!

 

We are sailing on toward global disaster and Sceptics mess with low end projections to try and prove that we are unsure as to how bad things will be. maybe for once they could look at the top end projections ( that we continue to exceed) and try and tell us about how much better things could be under such temp hikes???