Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

So that invalidates the article and the points made?It's a bit like dismissing everything Greenpeas say or do as somehow suspect or lies, because they are known to campaigh on green issues.

 

 

Are you seriously comparing the Heartland Institute with Greenpeace?

[knocker]

A Scientific Storm Is Brewing Over the Hurricane-Climate Connection

It's the month of July, right before the Atlantic hurricane season really gets chugging. And there are already signs that a busy year might be on the way, chief among them the unusual early appearance of a "Cape Verde-type" storm. These storms are typically sparked by atmospheric waves traveling all the way from the coast of Africa, and generally don't appear until later in the hurricane season.

 

And suddenly, an MIT scientist—who's arguably the world's top expert on hurricanes—publishes a bombshell paper in a top scientific journal. His suggestion? That global warming might be making the most destructive storms on Earth even more dangerous.

 

 

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/07/hurricanes-global-warming-kerry-emanuel

[UV-RAY]

A Scientific Storm Is Brewing Over the Hurricane-Climate Connection

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/07/hurricanes-global-warming-kerry-emanuel

I won't comment on the embroidered remark but I'm not so sure that this season will be very active due to the lower than average SST's. Edited July 14, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

Are you seriously comparing the Heartland Institute with Greenpeace?

Greenpeace did produce a pamphlet claiming that 'as the world is 64 million years' old we should treat it like a 64 year-old person'...Garbage, or what?

[UV-RAY]

Greenpeace did produce a pamphlet claiming that 'as the world is 64 million years' old we should treat it like a 64 year-old person'...Garbage, or what?

Many a moons ago I use to support Greenpeace, that was prior to it becoming a political tool for the middle classes.

[knocker]

Greenpeace did produce a pamphlet claiming that 'as the world is 64 million years' old we should treat it like a 64 year-old person'...Garbage, or what?

 

Oh don't get me wrong I'm not a great supporter of Greenpeace. I don't agree with their stance on GM crops for starters.

[knocker]

I won't comment on the embroidered remark but I'm not so sure that this season will be very active due to the lower than average SST's.

 

You may well be right but Dr, Masters

 

Chantal: a likely harbinger of an active Atlantic hurricane season

Chantal's formation on July 8 is an usually early date for formation of the season's third storm, which usually occurs on August 13. A large number of early-season named storms is not necessarily a harbinger of an active season, unless one or more of these storms form in the deep tropics, south of 23.5°N. According to Phil Klotzbach and Bill Gray, leaders of Colorado State's seasonal hurricane forecasting team,

"Most years do not have named storm formations in June and July in the tropical Atlantic (south of 23.5°N); however, if tropical formations do occur, it indicates that a very active hurricane season is likely. For example, the seven years with the most named storm days in the deep tropics in June and July (since 1949) are 1966, 1969, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2005, and 2008. All seven of these seasons were very active. When storms form in the deep tropics in the early part of the hurricane season, it indicates that conditions are already very favorable for TC development. In general, the start of the hurricane season is restricted by thermodynamics (warm SSTs, unstable lapse rates), and therefore deep tropical activity early in the hurricane season implies that the thermodynamics are already quite favorable for tropical cyclone (TC) development."

Two of this season's three storms have formed in the deep tropics--Tropical Storm Barry, which formed in the Gulf of Mexico's Bay of Campeche at a latitude of 19.6°N, and now Tropical Storm Chantal, which formed at a latitude of 9.8°N. With recent runs of the GFS model predicting formation of yet another tropical storm southwest of the Cape Verde Islands early next week, it appears that the Atlantic is primed for an active hurricane season in 2013.

Jeff Masters

 

[knocker]

This to a certain extent backs up BFTVs post in the Divide thread.

 

Guest Post: It’s Ice Melt Season, Deniers let the Conspiracy Theories Flow

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/14/guest-post-its-ice-melt-season-deniers-let-the-conspiracy-theories-flow/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Did I miss some rule changes during the 7 day luxury break I was kindly gifted?

 

A review of claims made by the Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry.

 

1: Michaels "Bet" In 1999 There Would Be A "Statistically Significant Cooling Trend" From 1998 To 2008.

 

2: Michaels Makes An "Easy Prediction" That By 2000 The "Vogue Environmental Calamity Will Be An Ice Age."

 

3: Michaels In 2001: Prius Will "Never" Deliver Profit For Toyota.

 

4:Michaels Mocked IPCC's "Scary" Assertion That Northern Hemisphere Will Warm Up Faster.

 

Plenty more in the link http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/10/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-histo/194800

Edited July 14, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[knocker]

The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming The most egregious myths, misconceptions and flat-out lies about the future of the planet

 

Climate change denial makes this polar bear sad.

 

 

Nos 4 and 5

 

4. Climate change is impossible because "God's still up there."

 

n 2012, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) contended that acceptance of climate science was at odds with Christianity – never mind that many Christian leaders and institutions take climate change very seriously. "My point is, God's still up there," he told Voice of Christian Youth America. "The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

A close runner-up in this category: In 2009, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois) cited God's post-flood promise to Noah as evidence we shouldn't be worried. "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over," he declared. "Man will not destroy this Earth." Well, that must be nice to know.

 

5. God buried fossil fuels "because he loves to see us find them."

 

Bryan Fischer, a director at the American Family Association, compared efforts to burn less fossil fuels to telling a friend that you don't like their birthday present. "That's kind of how we're treating God when he's given us these gifts of abundant and inexpensive and effective fuel sources," he observed. "God has buried those treasures there because he loves to see us find them." And everyone knows it's bad manners to turn down a divine treasure hunt.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-10-dumbest-things-ever-said-about-global-warming-20130619

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

 

The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming The most egregious myths, misconceptions and flat-out lies about the future of the planet

 

Climate change denial makes this polar bear sad.

 

 

Nos 4 and 5

 

4. Climate change is impossible because "God's still up there."

 

n 2012, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) contended that acceptance of climate science was at odds with Christianity – never mind that many Christian leaders and institutions take climate change very seriously. "My point is, God's still up there," he told Voice of Christian Youth America. "The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

A close runner-up in this category: In 2009, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois) cited God's post-flood promise to Noah as evidence we shouldn't be worried. "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over," he declared. "Man will not destroy this Earth." Well, that must be nice to know.

 

5. God buried fossil fuels "because he loves to see us find them."

 

Bryan Fischer, a director at the American Family Association, compared efforts to burn less fossil fuels to telling a friend that you don't like their birthday present. "That's kind of how we're treating God when he's given us these gifts of abundant and inexpensive and effective fuel sources," he observed. "God has buried those treasures there because he loves to see us find them." And everyone knows it's bad manners to turn down a divine treasure hunt.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-10-dumbest-things-ever-said-about-global-warming-20130619

 

 

 

 

  

[BornFromTheVoid]

They will scratch their heads as their lead authors are undergraduates with  degrees in anything other than sciences. The main reason why climate models are an epic fail is they work on assumptions that rising CO2  will lead to rising temps, if only it  was as simple as that. Sometimes it's best to get out of the lab and into the field and shake off those cobwebs and funding worries and observe what's actually happening.

 

 

 do I need to approach the IPCC and ask to become a lead author for the next instalment  of the chronicles of misinformation?

 

 

Really? Would they be affiliated to the WWF or Greenpeace by any chance?

 

 

Lol, your joking right....... And what may these significant changes be then because I see none.

 

 

 

Starts off defying the laws of physics once more by claiming that CO2 causing warming is a false assumption.

 

Claims that climate science is all done in the lab and that the scientists need to get out. This demonstrates a clear lack of awareness on decades, even centuries of the most basic climate research.

 

Makes the usual WUWT style false accusation against the IPCC, accusing them of misinformation, once more, without any basis.

 

Then when it's pointed out that scientists are out doing work in the field, it's simply dismissed without any reasoning, evidence or anything at all for that matter.

 

 

How can a debate occur when someone acts like this? How has dismissive, illogical, derogatory (bordering slanderous), inflammatory and disrespectful posts managed to get a foothold as a justifiable position in this debate?

 

These are just examples from a few hours of posts, from a single member!

What is this even doing in a science forum!?

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe this shows that i need add another column on the 'why can't we talk' thread? 'The Team' appear to dislike our challenging such ill informed non-sense but how can it be allowed to sit within a 'Science and Environment' Forum???

 

If there was ever an example of 'Baiting' then surely this is it? What steps do we see being taken to remedy such?

[Methuselah]

Maybe this shows that i need add another column on the 'why can't we talk' thread? 'The Team' appear to dislike our challenging such ill informed non-sense but how can it be allowed to sit within a 'Science and Environment' Forum???

 

If there was ever an example of 'Baiting' then surely this is it? What steps do we see being taken to remedy such?

Not at all, Ian...Just bring it across...

[knocker]

It's not all about models. Risk of impactful future warming is consistent with observations

 

http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~obolmd/PDF/Otto_et_al_NatureGeoscience_2013.pdf

[VillagePlank]

.. thought better of it

Edited July 15, 2013 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

NCDC Releases May 2013 Global Climate Report

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-may-2013-global-climate-report

[Gray-Wolf]

Cooldown/stall in temp rises  continues then Knocks?

[knocker]

Looks like it GW.

[Methuselah]

Ah, but there was record cold in southwest Greenland; which proves that CO₂ doesn't cause warming - and also being a trace gas, it can't possibly do so, anyway...It makes one wonder how infinitesimally minute amounts of organic toxins, like ricin and ribrin, can actually kill people, doesn't it?

[jethro]

This isn't the place to dispute climate change. You're all aware of the purpose of these threads, please observe the separation policy.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Posted in the new research thread, the last few paragraphs are relevant to this thread. 

 

http://www.deixismagazine.org/2013/07/deciphering-the-big-thaw/2/

 

 

 

 If increasing sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere triggered the end of the most recent ice age, why do clues to ice-age temperatures indicate the Southern Hemisphere warmed up before the Northern Hemisphere?

 

Now a team of researchers using Jaguar, a Cray XT supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has an answer. Simulations run over four years indicate changes in ocean currents gave the Southern Hemisphere a head start in warming up.

 

“Our results reconciled the Milankovitch theory and early Southern Hemisphere warming,†says Feng He, an assistant scientist at the Center for Climatic Research, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, at the University of Wisconsin­–Madison...

 

...So what caused the Southern Hemisphere to warm up so fast? A slowdown in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current. This stream is partly generated when cold, salty (and therefore dense) water sinks in the North Atlantic. That deep water flows south to the Antarctic Ocean and into the Indian and Pacific Oceans, forcing warm, upper seawater layers to flow back across the southern oceans and ultimately into the North Atlantic. This thermohaline circulation cycle, or the conveyor belt, warms coastal nations in the North Atlantic.

 

During the LGM, when increased sunlight began to melt the ice sheets, huge amounts of low-density freshwater flowed into the North Atlantic, reducing the conveyor belt’s flow and leaving warm sea water to gather in the Southern Hemisphere instead of moving north.

 

The team’s research, reported earlier this year in Nature, has implications for studies of today’s climate. At the end of the LGM, the warming waters and melting sea ice released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, accelerating a powerful feedback loop. “For modern climate change, our results show that atmospheric CO₂ is capable of producing global warming, (just) as it provided the critical feedback on global deglaciation in the past,†says He, the paper’s lead author.

 

The study also helps validate computational modeling of climate change, a field that’s often under attack. CCSM3 is one of the models providing input to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations-backed scientific group that periodically reports on the state of climate science.

 

He adds, “We showed that at least one of the IPCC models used to predict the future can reproduce the past.â€

 

 

 

[VillagePlank]

Yes, BFTV; but replicating the past is often no indication of prediction. For instance, I can problem knock up a polynomial that follows the moving average of climate pretty well (high r² > 0.75) It's not hard, you can't do it with Excel, but with a little bit of coding it's not too hard. Do you think that that would therefore be a good predictor of future climate? Of course, not, and I know you'd agree to that.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yes, BFTV; but replicating the past is often no indication of prediction. For instance, I can problem knock up a polynomial that follows the moving average of climate pretty well (high r² > 0.75) It's not hard, you can't do it with Excel, but with a little bit of coding it's not too hard. Do you think that that would therefore be a good predictor of future climate? Of course, not, and I know you'd agree to that.

 

I don't know enough about the model (or climate modelling in general!) to say whether I agree with the assertion or not, I just found the piece interesting, and posted it in here for the CO2 part at the end, rather than the final line.

But seeing as it's based on known physics rather than simple curve fitting, I don't think the comparison is quite right.

[VillagePlank]

A climate model consists of a dynamical core (Navier-Stokes etc) and is integrated with physical processes (ie dealing with turbulence, clouds, etc), of which, a huge amount (read: most if not all) of them are parameterised (read: approximations) That they have any skill whatsoever is a minor miracle. Fortunately, huge amount of research is going on, and with the ever increasing amounts of computing power they are getting better all the time. The point is: they are not perfect, no one claims they are perfect. There is an underlying theme that the laws are known, they're stuck in a computer, and hey presto, apart from chaos, these things are great. It's not true, it's never been true, it will never be true. It doesn't exclude them from being useful; but they are not a panacea.