Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Interesting further post by Nick Stoke regarding March global Temps Surprisingthe difference this makes. Or perhaps not.

 

Significant GHCN errors in March 2014

Edited April 12, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Some light entertainment for Sunday. Anthony is getting excited about the probability of a strong El Nino this year. In fact he has gone into a tail spin and  dammit, he's going to get his retaliation in first.

 

Anthony Watts is confused about ENSO and Bob Tisdale fudges a chart.

 

Anthony Watts is very confused about ENSO. He's got a little competition going at the moment (archived here, latest update here).  This is what he's written:

 

 When/if a large or super El Niño forms, you know the usual suspects will try to link it to global warming/climate change. It is as certain as the sun rising in the morning.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/anthony-watts-is-confused-about-enso.html

Edited April 13, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

The IPCC has just released the summary for policymakers of the Working Group 3 report on mitigating climate change. It makes clear that the world has to act quickly to restrict carbon emissions to have a reasonable chance of restricting warming to 2ºC by the end of the century, but establishes that the costs of action are affordable.

 

A few key points:

• Annual greenhouse gas emissions have risen 10 GtCO₂eq between 2000 and 2010, and half of all emissions since 1750 have occurred in the last 40 years
• If no further actions are taken to reduce emissions global mean surface temperature in 2100 will increase by 3.7 to 4.8°C compared to preâ€industrial levels
• To have a reasonable chance of staying under 2ºC of warming in 2100 means restricting greenhouse gases to 450 ppm CO₂eq
• Hitting 450 ppm CO₂eq will mean “substantial cuts in anthropogenic GHG emissions by midâ€century through largeâ€scale changes in energy systems and potentially land useâ€
• Typical 450 ppm CO₂eq scenarios include overshooting the target and then removal of CO₂ by bionenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), though “carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and methods are uncertain and CDR technologies and methods are, to varying degrees, associated with challenges and risksâ€
• The Cancun pledges are not consistent with cost-effective efforts to hit 2ºC, and are more likely to commit the world to 3ºC of warming
• The sooner we act, the cheaper overall mitigation will be – as little as 0.06% of annual GDP growth to hit 450 ppm CO₂eq

http://hot-topic.co.nz/ipcc-wg3-it-does-not-cost-the-world-to-save-the-planet/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FRbRF+%28Hot+Topic%29

[knocker]

I posted this in another thread but it may fit equally in here after the IPCC mitigation publication.

 

Fine presentation

 

David MacKay, Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK addressed energy issues at a macro and micro scale with the Harvard University community and beyond.

 

 

Harvard link to the slides.

 

http://www.withouthotair.com/talks.html

[knocker]

wrong thread

Edited April 14, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Stephan Lewandowsky's (author of the recent controversial climate denier/conspiracy theory paper that was dropped by the publisher) reddit AMA is up now. He's answered some questions, and will be answering more later

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/22zwkq/science_ama_series_im_prof_stephan_lewandowsky_i/

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-60#entry2957129

 

Keith your argument seems to be that if you can label someone a hypocrite they are therefore wrong.

 

But, all someone has to do is say smoking is bad for health while...smoking and, by the power of your logic, smoking isn't bad for health. See the problem???

[knocker]

Stephan Lewandowsky's (author of the recent controversial climate denier/conspiracy theory paper that was dropped by the publisher) reddit AMA is up now. He's answered some questions, and will be answering more laterhttp://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/22zwkq/science_ama_series_im_prof_stephan_lewandowsky_i/

 

If anyone hasn't been following this.

 

Climate contrarian backlash - a difficult lesson for scientific journals to learn

 

Poor handling of climate contrarian papers and bullying has often forced scientific journal editors to resign

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/14/climate-contrarian-backlash-journal-difficult-lesson

Edited April 14, 2014 by knocker

[Nick L]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-60#entry2957129

 

Keith your argument seems to be that if you can label someone a hypocrite they are therefore wrong.

 

But, all someone has to do is say smoking is bad for health while...smoking and, by the power of your logic, smoking isn't bad for health. See the problem???

 

That's an excellent analogy! Might pinch that one for myself

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-60#entry2957152

 

Humm, a cult can be defined as (Wikipedia) "Outward religious practice in worship is expressed through religious rituals. Cult in this sense is literally the "care" (Latin cultus) owed to the God or gods and the temples, shrines, or churches. In the specific context of Greek hero cult, Carla Antonaccio has written, "The term cult identifies a pattern of ritual behavior in connection with specific objects, within a framework of spatial and temporal coordinates. Rituals would include (but not necessarily be limited to) prayer, sacrifice, votive offerings, competitions, processions and construction of monuments. Some degree of recurrence in place and repetition over time of ritual action is necessary for a cult to be enacted, to be practiced"^[1] Cult is embodied in ritual and ceremony. Its present or former presence is made concrete in temples, shrines and churches, and cult images (denigrated by Christians as "idols") and votive deposits at votive sites."

 

Now, I would describe myself as, hope I am, more moral than religious. But, of the two sides of this debate are either 'cults'?

 

I don't think so, Keith, I think you're just throwing mud.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Devonian

[Devonian]

 

If anyone hasn't been following this.

 

Climate contrarian backlash - a difficult lesson for scientific journals to learn

 

Poor handling of climate contrarian papers and bullying has often forced scientific journal editors to resign

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/14/climate-contrarian-backlash-journal-difficult-lesson

 

Difficult isn't it. Say nothing and myths propagate, say anything and the above can happen.

 

Essentially, the problem is it's that the climate nays have an attractive vision to sell, 'No need to be concerned, it's all a scare, they want to tax you, you can't trust scientists, they're all [insert scary political ideology]'. Easy to sell.

[knocker]

Difficult isn't it. Say nothing and myths propagate, say anything and the above can happen.

 

Essentially, the problem is it's that the climate nays have an attractive vision to sell, 'No need to be concerned, it's all a scare, they want to tax you, you can't trust scientists, they're all [insert scary political ideology]'. Easy to sell.

 

More on this on Greg Laden's blog just now.

 

Fisking Henry Markram’s Comment About “Recursive Fury†and the Frontiers Retraction

 

Henry Markram, a chief editor at Frontiers, the journal that recently retracted (resulting in multiple resignations of editors from that journal), inappropriately, an important paper on climate change denialism, just made the following comment on a post on that journal’s blog.

[knocker]

The turnout is encouraging

 

Heartland logic: More people have heard of Fidel Castro than Michael Mann, therefore global warming is false.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2496&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited April 16, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Mitigation of Climate Change – Part 3 of the new IPCC report -

 

Guest post by Brigitte Knopf

 

 

Global emissions continue to rise further and this is in the first place due to economic growth and to a lesser extent to population growth. To achieve climate protection, fossil power generation without CCS has to be phased out almost entirely by the end of the century. The mitigation of climate change constitutes a major technological and institutional challenge. But: It does not cost the world to save the planet. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/mitigation-of-climate-change-part-3-of-the-new-ipcc-report/#sthash.1TGP2ea6.dpuf

 

Edited April 17, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I sense a change in the misleaders over the past 4 months. I think they are fully aware of the changes we are about to see occuring over the next period ( 5 years?) with the upcoming Nino signalling a return to warming as IPO and PDO also flip back into augmenting the warming. The Unknown is the impacts that an ice free Arctic will bring with it? If we give any credence to the recent temp reconstructions including the Arctic then the 'hiatus' was negated by 1/3 ice free conditions milking extra heat out of our incoming solar so what would augmenting natural cycles and an ice free basin do to the rate of temp rises over the coming period?

 

As I've always said the 'misleaders' are best positioned to take on the cutting edge research and so are probably more aware than we are of what to expect over the upcoming resumption of warming.......... obviously the 'No Warming since.......' meme is now dead.

[knocker]

The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes). Well maybe not mine.http:////d321955.r.worldssl.net/forum//public/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.png

 

Journalist Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer54) has a new video out on climate change issues. Peter takes his usual effective approach of imploring people to not rely solely on blogs for information. You have to actually read the published scientific literature, which is a proposition even Skeptical Science adheres to. (Authors at SkS are expected to cite references for their claims and we hope our readers take the time to follow through and check those sources.)

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-consequences-of-climate-change-in-our-lifetimes.html#.U0_mmAWDYlk.twitter

 

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/

 

Just about says it all! A PHD and he spends his time linking UFO's to AGW........ they'll lap it up over on the other thread......

 

Oddly I see upper ocean temps tracking pretty closely with disruptor posting over serious climate topics over the same period????

[knocker]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/

 

Just about says it all! A PHD and he spends his time linking UFO's to AGW........ they'll lap it up over on the other thread......

 

Oddly I see upper ocean temps tracking pretty closely with disruptor posting over serious climate topics over the same period????

 

Don't forget Spencer has been a fully fledged nutcase for quite a while now. It's probably being premiered on **** as we write.

[Methuselah]

Although it's fair to say that the science is all-but settled, the same cannot be said about the rhetoric?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news.cisc.gmu.edu/doc/CA_drought_research.pdf

 

 

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059748/abstract

 

Looks like the evidence for AGW's fingerprint on the US ridge last winter is amassing?

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2665

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426810/california-drought-climate-change/

Edited April 18, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Off course led by the southwhich is some 1.6m above the norm whatever that really is. Whilst they over on the manamade thread continue to harp on about artic ice they have been deafening in their silence to explain the growth down under which in a world of AGW doesn't fit the agenda.

Now the cold drought etc etc that the states suffered and continue to suffer is all AGW fault and man must change his ways but wheres the science!!!!!

 

See above? Check out the list of papers at the bottom of Mr Masters piece on the winter dipole over the states. Why do you folk just think we cotton onto something and call it AGW instead of reading a hell of a lot of science before we venture an opinion? Would it serve you all better if we had the same level of intellect as we see displayed over on the other thread most of the time ( 1 hit wonders from a blog serving as research etc)......

[BornFromTheVoid]

See above? Check out the list of papers at the bottom of Mr Masters piece on the winter dipole over the states. Why do you folk just think we cotton onto something and call it AGW instead of reading a hell of a lot of science before we venture an opinion? Would it serve you all better if we had the same level of intellect as we see displayed over on the other thread most of the time ( 1 hit wonders from a blog serving as research etc)......

 

I wonder what the "AGW sceptic" explanation is for the Antarctic sea ice increases? Seeing as most already believe they have a better handle of the climate than the climate scientists!

[Devonian]

I wonder what the "AGW sceptic" explanation is for the Antarctic sea ice increases? Seeing as most already believe they have a better handle of the climate than the climate scientists!

 

It an interesting question. Lets have Keith, Stew, four or jonboy explain to us what is going on.

[be cause]

Hi Stef

[knocker]

An interesting piece by Tamino on trends.

 

Non-Linear Trends

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/non-linear-trends/