Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Polar Maritime]

[knocker]

Resilient or Sustainable - morning musing from Eli.

 

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-wais-and-resilience.html

[knocker]

The urgent voice who refused to be silenced on climate danger

 

This is part three of this profile. Read part one here and part two here.

 

By December 6, 2005, NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ (GISS) temperature record was already sending a clear message: worldwide, 2005 would likely be the warmest year so far. For GISS director Jim Hansen, speaking to the annual American Geophysical Union conference, arguably the world’s largest environmental research meeting, it seemed fair to reveal. For several listening journalists it was newsworthy enough for them to cover Jim’s talk. But it would anger some of Jim’s colleagues at NASA headquarters enough to try to stop him talking to the media. In the process they’d drag him outside the world of pure research he was most comfortable in. “The undue influence of special interests and government greenwash pose formidable barriers to a well-informed public,†Jim would later write about the situation. “Without a well-informed public, humanity itself and all species on the planet are threatened.â€

 

http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/the-urgent-voice-who-refused-to-be-silenced-on-climate-danger/

[knocker]

Amazing what solar installations mean to countries without existing electricity infrastructure. Bangladesh

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-a-green-jobs-boom-is-under-way-in-bangladesh/362087/

[knocker]

Decades of cooling?

 

Victor Venema and Judith Curry were having a Twitter discussion yesterday about uncertainty. I think – although Victor can correct me – that Victor was trying to get Judith to acknowledge that uncertainty works both ways. Even though it is possible that we could warm more slowly than expected, it’s also possible that we could warm much faster than expected. Deciding – for example – that we are likely to warm more slowly than expected would seem to be ignoring large swathes of evidence to suggest that this isn’t necessarily a likely outcome.

 

What got me interested, though, was that Judith said

[knocker]

WMO press release

 

CO2 concentrations top 400 parts per million throughout northern hemisphere

 

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_991_en.html

[knocker]

Is there no limit to the skulduggery?

 

Carter and de Lange’s GWPF sea level report plagiarises their own Heartland-funded NIPCC propaganda

 

Analysis of a report on sea level rise — Sea-level Change: Living with uncertainty — published earlier this month by Nigel Lawson’s UK climate lobby group the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and written by NZ scientists Willem de Lange and Bob Carter, shows that it extensively plagiarises last year’s heavily criticised Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, funded and published by US lobby group the Heartland Institute. The GWPF report’s conclusions are taken word-for-word from chapter six of the NIPCC report — Observations: The Hydrosphere and Ocean [pdf] — also written by de Lange and Carter. Nowhere in the report do the report’s authors or the GWPF acknowledge the extent to which they rely on the earlier publication. Carter and de Lange fail to credit themselves, Heartland, or the NIPCC beyond a single reference to their chapter in the list of sources appended to the GWPF report.

 

http://hot-topic.co.nz/carter-and-de-langes-gwpf-sea-level-report-plagiarises-their-own-heartland-funded-nipcc-propaganda/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FRbRF+%28Hot+Topic%29

[Gray-Wolf]

There appears to be a trend arising Knocks. They hammer research but once new research with even grimmer conclusions arise then they grab onto the old papers as if they are Gospel?

 

We saw them do this with the old IPCC paper ( prior to the release of this one) ? They hammered it for 3 years until later research made for even grimmer reading and then they did a 180 and held it up as some kind of 'gospel truth'....... esp. Wattsy and his crew.

[Polar Maritime]

There appears to be a trend arising Knocks. They hammer research but once new research with even grimmer conclusions arise then they grab onto the old papers as if they are Gospel?

 

We saw them do this with the old IPCC paper ( prior to the release of this one) ? They hammered it for 3 years until later research made for even grimmer reading and then they did a 180 and held it up as some kind of 'gospel truth'....... esp. Wattsy and his crew.

 

They have always/and will always be behind times as far as I can grasp as you say GW, Arguing arguments that have already been argued by the same Scientists that wrote the papers in the first place, Then spouting "told you so" as if they already new/or know better than the worlds top expert's.. The old'est trick in the book.

 

Science changes and always will, The simple task is to keep up with it. That's what Knocks good at   

Edited May 27, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[Gray-Wolf]

Deniers appear to want to 'stop time' at one that suits them best though? " Oh this report makes grim reading so we'll focus on the last one and make it our stand...." type of thing?

 

TAR4 did not include swathes about sea level change because Australia/Canada/China would not sign off on the paper with the projection in. Lo and Behold Deniers take the TAR4 sea level projections as 'solid science ( after arguing for 3 years that it was 'doom mongering') as soon as they get wind that upward revised figures would be in the new report!!!.

 

It is not about science moving forward but about pinning science to a date that suits ( " in the 70's they were predicting an ice age.....").

 

We must keep up to latest science and we must credit the folk gathering the data with more understanding of their subject than we , or any other mere commentator, has.......isn't that called respect?

Edited May 27, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

An Australian viewpoint.

 

Climate change by any name is economics

 

"Business as usual" will cost us dearly if we don't tackle the problem of global warming. Tim Lubcke looks at the intergenerational economic consequences of Joe Hockey's first Budget.

[Gray-Wolf]

 

An Australian viewpoint.

 

Climate change by any name is economics

 

 

But will the budget of hockey's stick?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

But will the budget of hockey's stick?

 

That's worth a ban. MODS.......................................................

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-65#entry2977963

 

Misleading - at best.

 

My (German?) is non existant but I can read graphs. The data is for winter.

 

You, Keith, don't mention the data is for winter alone. You are misleading us by saying temperatures have fallen without clarifying you mean in one season.

[Gray-Wolf]

Can it be true???? The other place seeking to mislead folk into thinking that we are not seeing warming across the planet????

 

Maybe you could be more generous Dev and accept that it is KL that is being mislead in his haste to be proven right....... measure twice, cut once and all of that eh?

[Methuselah]

But will the budget of hockey's stick?

I do so love the deniers' desperate attempts to conflate climate science and economics...As if exchange-rate mechanisms affect the weather!

[knocker]

Some thoughts by Nick Stokes

 

  Detecting periodicity

[knocker]

I really have to give this some serious thought.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0UkH81NMTo#t=95

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-65#entry2978694

 

Larry and Anthony have been working themselves into a veritable frenzy in the last few days. So much so I fear for their sanity. Oh too late............

 

Larry Hamlin blunders down under in Antarctica

 

The rapid increase in the loss of ice in West Antarctica is really eating the heart out of Anthony Watts and his band of science deniers at WUWT. After, what is it, five articles in as many days?  Now there's a sixth (archived here). A shouty rant by Larry Hamlin who is really, really scared by global warming, going by his two latest articles.You may remember this one from yesterday, where poor Larry was so terrified of the risk of wildfires he could scarcely restrain himself. Well, today it's the ice that's got him quaking in his boots. He's let forth on an article by Damian Carrington in the UK Guardian, which reports on a new study showing that Antarctic ice is disappearing twice as fast as it was a few years ago. (Larry was so overcome by fear that he could only manage a broken link to the article).

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/larry-hamlin-blunders-down-under-in.html

 

Addendum - Richard Alley interviewed by Chris Mooney

There's a great podcast with Richard Alley here, where he discusses the collapse of WAIS with Chris Mooney - the interview with him starts at 16:09 (slide the slider). He's talking about how, as Antarctica melts, the sea level will rise a little more around the USA than the global average.

Edited May 29, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Global Survey: Climate Change Now a Mainstream Part of City Planning

 

 

CAMBRIDGE, MA -- An increasing number of cities around the world now include preparations for climate change in their basic urban planning — but only a small portion of them have been able to make such plans part of their economic development priorities, according to a unique global survey of cities released today.

 

The Urban Climate Change Governance Survey (UCGS), based on responses from 350 cities worldwide, underscores the extent to which city leaders recognize climate change as a major challenge — even as they are trying to figure out how their responses can create jobs, growth, and cost savings in areas ranging from cities' transportation networks to their distribution of businesses.

 

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2014052915110013.html

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-65#entry2979089

 

I find this post by KL symptomatic of much that is wrong in this area. For a start it's deliberately misleading by not comparing like with like. Heating degree days are a different calculation completely as explained in the link. Secondly, and far more seriously, it contains accusations of fraud against a leading organisation. as in the case of BOM previously, not suported by any evidence and quite frankly is libellous. It's about time Netweather and the MODS got to grips with this.

 

Enough time spent on this already but just to say there has never been any question that parts of the US suffered a very severe first quarter in 2014. Using the fudged figures from NOAA for three areas show this quite well. What any of this has to do with the price of fish I've no idea.

Edited May 31, 2014 by knocker

[Polar Maritime]

 

 

I find this post by KL symptomatic of much that is wrong in this area. For a start it's deliberately misleading by not comparing like with like. Heating degree days are a different calculation completely as explained in the link. Secondly, and far more seriously, it contains accusations of fraud against a leading organisation. as in the case of BOM previously, not suported by any evidence and quite frankly is libellous. It's about time Netweather and the MODS got to grips with this.

 

Agree there Knock, Let's wait and see 

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-65#entry2979089

 

I find this post by KL symptomatic of much that is wrong in this area. For a start it's deliberately misleading by not comparing like with like. Heating degree days are a different calculation completely as explained in the link. Secondly, and far more seriously, it contains accusations of fraud against a leading organisation. as in the case of BOM previously, not suported by any evidence and quite frankly is libellous. It's about time Netweather and the MODS got to grips with this.

 

Enough time spent on this already but just to say there has never been any question that parts of the US suffered a very severe first quarter in 2014. Using the fudged figures from NOAA for three areas show this quite well. What any of this has to do with the price of fish I've no idea.

 

Very much agree.

 

To add to that, accusations of fraud against respected scientific organisations, and worse, individual scientists, makes a healthy and respectful debate in here all the more difficult.

[Gray-Wolf]

It's there dime guys? If they want to court Court by allowing such posts to stand then so be it but in a climate where organisations take an increasingly dim view of such I wonder how long the practice will be allowed to go unchecked?

 

I seem to believe that similar twisting of Meto data over on the model threads get lifted pretty sharpish though?

[Gray-Wolf]

A new study has found that the Antarctic Ice Sheet began melting about 5,000 years earlier than previously thought coming out of the last ice age – and that shrinkage of the vast ice sheet accelerated during eight distinct episodes, causing rapid sea level rise.

 

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/antarctic-ice-sheet-was-unstable-at-end-of-last-ice-age.html

 

So another example of how Mother N. goes about her business? We ought all be mindful when looking at plots for future change that straight lines are not the 'natural' way that change occurs and that we should expect to face periods that change occurs more rapidly than other periods which may appear almost stable?

 

I believe that we are just about to witness this in the rate of change of global temps? 

 

of course it would be just as wrong to look from within a period of rapid change and expect that rate of change to be a new 'constant'?

 

If we are to expect Sea Levels to obey natures rule of 'fast, slow' then we had better make ready as it will be too late once a melt pulse begins to bring problems to ports/terminals/cities?