Climate change

[PassedOut]

Very warm in the UP again today, and I guess we are no exception: Arctic ice levels hit historic low

 

The North Pole skull cap shrank to about half a percent under the previous record low set in September 2007, according to the school's Institute of Environmental Physics.

 

Researchers, including those from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, had predicted earlier this summer that Arctic sea ice levels could reach extreme lows. But the University of Bremen physicists said there was uncertainty in July about whether the ice melt would surpass the previous record.

 

They said their studies indicated that continuing ice decline was related to man-made global warming.

 

"It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences," researchers said in their report. "Directly, the livehood of small animals, algae, fishes and mammals like polar bears and seals is more and more reduced."

Consequences. Yes indeed.

[luke warm]

Consequences. Yes indeed.

on no!!!! quick, raise my taxes!!!!

[hrothgar]

 

My previous post was the expression on my opinion of the editor`s motivations, especially when you consider the stated goals of that "open" journal, espoused and expressed by that same editor but a short time before as he took the editor`s position:

 

 

I encourage anyone who is actually interested in the editor's motivations to look at the actual letter of resignation rather than trusting anything that Al posts.

 

The complete letter is available at: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

 

Personally, I think that its pretty hard to misinterpret a letter that starts with:

 

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be

able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet

discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded

climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statement

 

Not to mention

 

The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which

was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―tomake clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

[Al_U_Card]

Very warm in the UP again today, and I guess we are no exception: Arctic ice levels hit historic low

 

 

Consequences. Yes indeed.

 

 

Bremen might want to check their figures, as they are in disagreement with the other five sea-ice monitors (NSIDC, JAXA, DMI, Cryosphere Today, and NANSEN) You can check for yourself. What stands out is that we are certainly at the low ebb for arctic sea-ice and that 2007 definitely had an outlier type melt season. (The curve is distorted relative to the other years and was possibly due to weather phenomena that blew a lot of ice out the Fram Strait that year.)

 

Either way, polar bears don`t seem to be suffering, as their numbers over the last 30 years have more than tripled from around 5,000 to upwards of 20,000. As for the taxes, definitely as sure as death but somewhat less certain than the weather, as it should be... :lol:

[Al_U_Card]

on no!!!! quick, raise my taxes!!!!

 

I gather that Barry O heard that the snow banks of Alaska were disappearing so he offered to bail them out... :ph34r:

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of dire consequences, I am sure that the planned allocation of resources to climate-ravaged regions of the world is well supported by the consensus science of the IPCC... eg

 

AR4 IPCC Report 2007. For example in Chapter 11 of the Executive Summary:

 

There is likely to be an increase in annual mean rainfall in East Africa.”

 

On page 869, in Chapter 11.2.3.2 (emphasis added):

 

"The increase in rainfall in East Africa, extending into the Horn of Africa, is also robust across the ensemble of models, with 18 of 21 models projecting an increase in the core of this region, "

 

Surely the Somali and Ethiopians sujected to the current drought-induced famine will understand that the above "conclusion" was just a model-based projection. :ph34r:

[hrothgar]

 

"The increase in rainfall in East Africa, extending into the Horn of Africa, is also robust across the ensemble of models, with 18 of 21 models projecting an increase in the core of this region, "

 

 

Hey *****head, if you actually read the report rather than just parroting Watt's up with That's latest screed you might have noticed that said results were contrasting the periods 1980 - 1999 and 2080 - 2099...

 

No one other than you asswipes claim that long term climate models are appropriate for short term forecasts

[Al_U_Card]

"I just finished using Mike's Nature trick, to hide the decline."

 

Must be contagious...when exposed to climate "science". All those Haimalayan glaciers melting by 2035 and snowless Kilimanjaros caused by CAGW etc. etc. :huh:

[hrothgar]

"I just finished using Mike's Nature trick, to hide the decline."

 

Strange, should have sworn that we dealt with this "issue" years back...

Guess you're too stupid to remember.

[Al_U_Card]

Cloud formation shouldn`t be that big a problem when modelling precipitation... :angry: ... it`s just that projections are being used to guide policy that are allocating resources, to say nothing of the inherent up-coming tax grab.

(Keep an eye on Australia, they will become the test case when they adopt their carbon "price".)

 

From the AR4, precipitation model ensemble page: (my bolding)

 

Despite the many improvements, numerous issues remain. Many of the important processes that determine a model’s response to changes in radiative forcing are not resolved by the model’s grid. Instead, sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation and the mixing due to oceanic eddies. It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model. Table 8.1 summarises the formulations of each of the AOGCMs used in this report.

 

There is currently no consensus on the optimal way to divide computer resources among finer numerical grids, which allow for better simulations; greater numbers of ensemble members, which allow for better statistical estimates of uncertainty; and inclusion of a more complete set of processes (e.g., carbon feedbacks, atmospheric chemistry interactions).

 

Projections for 2070-2099

[hrothgar]

Hey Al, you constantly demonstrate that you're too stupid to read an article and draw even halfway accurate inferences...

Why the pretense?

 

Do you think that anyone believes that bold facing a statement is remotely equivalent to understanding what's being discussed?

 

 

 

Cloud formation shouldn`t be that big a problem when modelling precipitation... :angry: ... it`s just that projections are being used to guide policy that are allocating resources, to say nothing of the inherent up-coming tax grab.

(Keep an eye on Australia, they will become the test case when they adopt their carbon "price".)

 

From the AR4, precipitation model ensemble page: (my bolding)

 

Despite the many improvements, numerous issues remain. Many of the important processes that determine a model’s response to changes in radiative forcing are not resolved by the model’s grid. Instead, sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation and the mixing due to oceanic eddies. It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model. Table 8.1 summarises the formulations of each of the AOGCMs used in this report.

 

There is currently no consensus on the optimal way to divide computer resources among finer numerical grids, which allow for better simulations; greater numbers of ensemble members, which allow for better statistical estimates of uncertainty; and inclusion of a more complete set of processes (e.g., carbon feedbacks, atmospheric chemistry interactions).

 

Projections for 2070-2099

[Winstonm]

sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation

 

Clouds have a liberal bias, too?

[mike777]

fwiw again what is the relationiship between CO2 concentration and temp change.

 

Lets focus on whats important.

 

 

Are we talking about a very very urgent disaster or something less?

 

If the very urgent than we basically have a disaster now. A very very real disaster now as changing economics will bring on disaster.

 

----

 

 

I dont really get if clouds are bias as a joke.

 

at this point as a dunderhead I would like to learn more abourt c02concentration and temp changes.

[hrothgar]

fwiw again what is the relationiship between CO2 concentration and temp change.

 

I recommend reading up on the Greenhouse effect.

Wikipedia has a decent enough treatment.

[luke warm]

I recommend reading up on the Greenhouse effect. Wikipedia has a decent enough treatment.

not all greenhouse gases are created equal, and not all have the same effect on certain things, such as temperature

[PassedOut]

not all greenhouse gases are created equal, and not all have the same effect on certain things, such as temperature

True.

 

Greenhouse effect

 

Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect.[17] This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.[18]

[Al_U_Card]

fwiw again what is the relationiship between CO2 concentration and temp change.

 

 

at this point as a dunderhead I would like to learn more abourt c02concentration and temp changes.

 

As a potential canary in a coal mine, Mike, it is a reasonable question concerning how 390 or even 3900 ppm of CO2 can affect global temps. The short answer is that computer models, adjusted to create positive feedbacks between water vapour (the real GHG) and CO2, demonstrate rapid warming that is, as yet, unfounded or at least not manifesting as predicted...

 

The literature shows that CO2 as a GHG provides a logarithmic temperature response to concentration. Under 200 ppm, we all die because there is no green plant growth. The first doubling to 400 ppm provides a theoretical 0.7 C temperature increase. Each subsequent doubling provides less and less so that, at 3,900 ppm, you might get a couple of degrees C out of it. When you consider global temperatures over geological time periods, there has been as much as 6000 ppm CO2 and the average global temp never got much over about 16C or so IIRC.

 

Recent literature is questioning a lot of the model mania and water vapor (clouds included) may well exhibit the negative feedback that you would expect from a global system that gets day/night temp differences of tens of degrees C to deal with. So don't panic and hope that reason prevails (Like that ever happened!).

[Al_U_Card]

well he does have a good point re: australia... i guess we'll see

More on the situation down under. Click on the audio link for the interview. Quite the legislative effort...

 

Carbon price or price to pay?

[helene_t]

It is Murdoch's fault if the impact of climate change is being exaggerated - after all it was his Time's atlas that showed that 15% of Greenland's ice cover has gone.

[mike777]

As a potential canary in a coal mine, Mike, it is a reasonable question concerning how 390 or even 3900 ppm of CO2 can affect global temps. The short answer is that computer models, adjusted to create positive feedbacks between water vapour (the real GHG) and CO2, demonstrate rapid warming that is, as yet, unfounded or at least not manifesting as predicted...

 

The literature shows that CO2 as a GHG provides a logarithmic temperature response to concentration. Under 200 ppm, we all die because there is no green plant growth. The first doubling to 400 ppm provides a theoretical 0.7 C temperature increase. Each subsequent doubling provides less and less so that, at 3,900 ppm, you might get a couple of degrees C out of it. When you consider global temperatures over geological time periods, there has been as much as 6000 ppm CO2 and the average global temp never got much over about 16C or so IIRC.

 

Recent literature is questioning a lot of the model mania and water vapor (clouds included) may well exhibit the negative feedback that you would expect from a global system that gets day/night temp differences of tens of degrees C to deal with. So don't panic and hope that reason prevails (Like that ever happened!).

 

 

 

The good thing is I think this question at some point can be answered by automation(computers).

 

The huge problem is just how urgent is the problem. If urgent than we have a disaster on our hands as the economic solution leads to disaster.

[Al_U_Card]

From someone who should know.

 

(Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time to the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.)

 

Fighting for their economic lives.

 

An excerpt:

 

The theory of man-made global warming doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny. It requires believers to ignore or deny overwhelming evidence that it is bunk. The believers have to be schooled by massive propaganda not to notice certain things, and to ignore and revile anyone who points out those things.

There is in fact no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made. If there was, we would have heard all about it. Tens of billions of dollars has been spent looking for it.

Climate scientists readily concede that there is no direct evidence that global warming is caused by our carbon dioxide. Instead, they say that our knowledge of how the climate works is embodied in their climate models, and the climate models say that global warming is man-made.

Models are logically equivalent to someone punching in numbers and doing sums on a calculator – models are calculations, not evidence. The problem is that the models contain many guesses and assumptions about how things work, and some of them are wrong.

[luke warm]

Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.)

bah, stanford... if he's an agw skeptic he's either an idiot or listening to fox news or parroting republican talking points

[Al_U_Card]

bah, stanford... if he's an agw skeptic he's either an idiot or listening to fox news or parroting republican talking points

 

I am just waiting for the CAGW crowd (dwindling as it is) to declare jihad on the unbelievers.....(it is a quasi-religion that we are talking about anyway).

 

Did anyone tune into Gore's Climate Reality Project? (24 hours of pain...or something)

[luke warm]

speaking of consensus (i'm sure we were at some point), it looks like that pertaining to the speed of light may have changed... we'll know more after the tests are verified, if they are

[Al_U_Card]

Dr Dennis Jensen is the Liberal federal member for Tangney in Western Australia. A former air traffic controller, CSIRO and later Defence research scientist,

 

 

More of the "Chunder from down-under"...