Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

Local variations cannot be a proxy for global events. Again, where is the non-AGW theory that explains global temperature developments?

 

When you consider all climate forcings, as represented by the global temperature readings that are available, oceanic oscillations (ENSO, PDO, AMO, AO) track (or perhaps demonstrate) the values nicely.

 

http://www.climate4you.com/images/PDO%20AnnualIndexSince1900%20With7yearRunningAverage.gif

 

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/eln-f-pg.gif

 

http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif

 

The gentle global warming of the current holocene (unfortunately a cooling phase appears in the works and when the AMO starts to cool, we may well be back to the deep-freeze of the LIA) with very little indication of catastrophic [CO2] or any other influence. Solar activity may save the day, but at present, we appear to be entering a very quiescent period.

[Al_U_Card]

I'm really impressed Al, how you manage to avoid the point and create a diversion.

 

If the world is getting warmer, from the large surfaces of the oceans more water will evaporate.

So there is more water in the air that can rain down.

This and the temperature will change the locations where the rain will occur.

So you expect regions where there will be more rain and others where there is less rain.

 

There are a lot of points so sorry if answering one came across to you as diverting attention from the others. Rainfall etc. is where the models fall down about climate sensitivity and the (potentially) negative feedback from clouds. Our planetary climate is pretty stable and that implies a control system that is pretty robust, or at least robust enough to handle changes to minor forcings. Should the sun go nuts, that might be another story. Again, information about that influence is under review and deserves to be included in the debate, although taxing sunshine would be a bit much... :P

[Al_U_Card]

This may be the case but I think the main reason is the lobbying of organizations like Greenpeace which (afaik) are not sponsored by big oil.

 

Some 25 years ago lots of people were afraid of computers. A similar technofobia was directed towards railways in the early 19th century. But computers and railways are things that ordinary people benefit from directly. The benefit from nuclear power, and genetically modified organisms, is more indirect.

 

Add to this the association between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

 

BP has VERY deep pockets:

Where that oil money goes...

[Al_U_Card]

I hear a similar claim all the time from those who want ID/Creationism taught in classrooms, that there are more and more scientists who reject evolution and accept ID. When pressed, though, they offer no valid details - just a bunch of old Discovery Institute websites long ago debunked as biased.

 

I have yet to see anyone propose a non-AGW explanation for events that thus far are matching as well as can be determined the forecasted models. The models forecast 7 increases (troposphere warming and various other warmings) and 3 decreases (sea ice, glaciers, snow cover) on a global scale. Any non-AGW theory would have to contain an explanation for all 10, not just question the reliability of the interpretations of a cherry-picked data set or two.

 

Creationism? Diversionary perhaps but evaluation on the merits of the data and arguments leaves no comparison. OTOH, I would be most interested to see the models and their results that you refer to. Certainly a subject of interest relative to long term fitting of the data and explanatory (or even predictive) capacity.

[Winstonm]

Rather than second-hand information, here is a good source for reliable information:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

[Winstonm]

Articles like this from Scientific American offer grim reality in contrast to the skeptics disregard: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change

 

....Scientists used to say, cautiously, that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of climate change. No more. "Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming," says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

 

That's a profound change—the difference between predicting something and actually seeing it happen. The reason is simple: The signal of climate change is emerging from the "noise"—the huge amount of natural variability in weather.

[Al_U_Card]

Rather than second-hand information, here is a good source for reliable information:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

 

Aside from the date being 2007 (a LOT of water under THAT bridge since then) so much new information is now available. (There was such heavy-handed moderation by Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann that no dissenting or questioning views were allowed to even post....) It is, however, a good source of how the "Team" worked when it was unchallenged and unchecked but for a few individuals and their FOI requests.

 

I have previously cited numerous examples of the failings of their models. Here is another that the above site champions yet reality rears its head and...well, you know.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/vermeer-and-rahmstorf-meet-observational-data.jpg?w=619&h=629

 

and the examination of the particulars.

 

V&R2011 vs the facts

[Al_U_Card]

Kevin Trenberth of NCAR issued the climategate email: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

 

But there is lots of information available.

 

http://www-hrx.ucsd.edu/www-argo/status.gif

 

From: You can't find what isn't there...

 

 

There have been numerous statements by NOAA and other agencies (including NCAR IIRC!) that have recognized that the droughts, snows, heatwave/fires, tornadoes and hurricane severity and frequency are NOT the result of any global climate warming.

[Al_U_Card]

On a lighter (coastline oriented) note ...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um4QM4_DOpU&feature=player_embedded

[Al_U_Card]

As previously stated, a lot of the problem starts with climate sensitivity, as ascribed to the models, based upon the IPCC AR4 value for temperature increase from a doubling of [CO2].

 

A very interesting (but statistically technical) exposition of how another error slipped into the AR4 because a WG1 basic value (real observations and not model-enhanced) was transformed statistically in an inappropriate manner. Thinking caps required for the post...

 

climate sensitivity is likely half that claimed by the IPCC

 

From the contents above:

 

 

The IPCC did not attempt, in the relevant part of AR4:WG1 (Chapter 9), any justification from statistical theory, or quote authority for, restating the results of Forster/Gregory 06 on the basis of a uniform prior in S. Nor did the IPCC challenge the Forster/Gregory 06 regression model, analysis of uncertainties or error assumptions. The IPCC simply relied on statements [Frame et al. 2005] that ‘advocate’ – without any justification from statistical theory – sampling a flat prior distribution in whatever is the target of the estimate – in this case, S. In fact, even Frame did not advocate use of a prior uniform distribution in S in a case like Forster/Gregory 06. Nevertheless, the IPCC concluded its discussion of the issue by simply stating that “uniform prior distributions for the target of the estimate [the climate sensitivity S] are used unless otherwise specified”.

 

The transformation effected by the IPCC, by recasting Forster/Gregory 06 in Bayesian terms and then restating its results using a prior distribution that is inconsistent with the regression model and error distributions used in the study, appears unjustifiable. In the circumstances, the transformed climate sensitivity PDF for Forster/Gregory 06 in the IPCC’s Figure 9.20 can only be seen as distorted and misleading.

 

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the PDF for Forster/Gregory 06 in the IPCC’s Figure 9.20 is invalid. But the underlying issue, that Bayesian use of a uniform prior in S conveys a strong belief in climate sensitivity being high, prejudging the observational evidence, applies to almost all of the Figure 9.20 PDFs.

[cloa513]

Local variations cannot be a proxy for global events. Again, where is the non-AGW theory that explains global temperature developments?

The surface data set was fiddled with (corrected in dodgy way without good reasons probably to get a heating effect). Alternative analysis allowing for the local effects (e.g. cities not only have a heat island effect they also have cause nights to be hotter by not allowing the cool air to settle over the land- it mixes with the troposphere) gives no heating at all rather cooling since 1930. Many nonAGW theories including that its the multidecadal effect - oceans releasing heat stored almost directly from the sun, the solar wind reducing

cosmic rays incidence which reduces low level cloud incidence worldwide.

 

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/an-alternative-solar-theory

[Al_U_Card]

Heh. On the old Jerry Pournelle forum on GEnie (which later moved to Bix and may still be around somewhere for all I know) people used to say "PPOR" when people made assertions like this. It stands for "provide proof or retract". Maybe we should start using it whenever and wherever we see such assertions. B-)

 

And from the peer-reviewed (non-team variety) literature:

 

pp 212 and 213 show how the NH climate has varied over the last 3 climate minima

[Winstonm]

Al, you bounce all over the place. What is it you are trying to say or prove?

[Al_U_Card]

Al, you bounce all over the place. What is it you are trying to say or prove?

 

Do I?

 

Perhaps due to the ad-hominem, carpet-bombing, astroturf tactics that Richard used to get the first 3 threads dumped?

 

Perhaps answering all of the questions provided by your goodselves that attempt to ridicule legitimate doubt and skepticism.

 

Perhaps it is just the OVERWHELMINGLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION THAT REFUTES CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING PURPORTEDLY CAUSED BY RISING [CO2]?

 

Easy-peasy. Read something other than Realclimate, Scientific American or other pro-CAGW sources. They have an agenda and they have and are stacking the deck against non-model-based climate reality. A new slant might just get you all back to an even keel. It got me out of the blue funk that the IPCC gang that couldn't measure straight had led me to a few years back. :P

[Vampyr]

Winston (and others):

 

1. You engage a climate skeptic.

 

2. You exchange a great number of arguments and statistics.

 

3. You create evidence that climate change is controversial.

[hrothgar]

Do I?

 

Perhaps due to the ad-hominem, carpet-bombing, astroturf tactics that Richard used to get the first 3 threads dumped?

 

 

Wow... Too stupid to know what astroturf means

Nice to know that it pisses you off, though.

 

Still, its highly amusing to see you whining about people posting off topic material that they cut and paste from other sites

 

I'm simply responding in kind and at least I have the decency to go with the classics.

[Al_U_Card]

I would once again like to point out that it has been years since Al has done anything but spam the message board with Global Warming commercials.

 

I hope that we wouldn't put up with random individuals joining the site and spamming us with Viagra ads and offers for discount tee shirts.

I don't understand why we let this troll do the same thing...

Al is not a real member of this forum or this community.

Why are we forced to deal with this constant annoyance?

[hotShot]

You are basically right, but why don't you put AL on your forum ignore list?

 

I 've just done that, so I don't have to see them any more.

 

 

And he might have accidentally made a bridge related post here, but that would definitely be his only one.

[hrothgar]

You are basically right, but why don't you put AL on your forum ignore list?

 

I 've just done that, so I don't have to see them any more.

 

http://xkcd.com/386/

[PassedOut]

You are basically right, but why don't you put AL on your forum ignore list?

 

I 've just done that, so I don't have to see them any more.

Thanks, I hadn't thought to look for that option before and it works fine. It's at My Settings > Profile > Manage Ignored Users.

[G_R__E_G]

I just read this entire thread. I can save any new readers some time, here it is in brief.

 

- Climate change is not bad, in fact it's good.

- No, it's bad.

- No, it's pretty good.

- Actually it's great!!

- No, it's bad. Really, really bad.

- Blah, blah, blah.

- Al is a troll.

- Blah, blah, blah.

- Blah, blah, blah.

 

Okay, I may not have read every post but I stand by my rendition.

[Al_U_Card]

You are basically right, but why don't you put AL on your forum ignore list?

 

I 've just done that, so I don't have to see them any more.

 

 

And he might have accidentally made a bridge related post here, but that would definitely be his only one.

 

Well, out of my over 4,000 posts in here, at least 2,000 were non-Water Cooler related. (When I was actively playing on a regular basis.) Then they started this section which was more fun to post in, for the most part. Feeling free to go wherever current events and speculation led, there were lots of topics that were enjoyable to exchange in. Some people didn't agree or like some of the topics and stayed away from those. Other topics seemed to draw outrage like flies to %@*!

 

Aside from the banking/financial crisis that is enveloping the world, the issue of CAGW was, for me, also quite interesting. Diverse views that oppose the recently installed status-quo appear, however, to be much less acceptable. As far as the mendacity and veracity of the official record as it stands currently, I suppose that only time will tell. I will always be willing to change my mind, should the situation warrant, as I started out a warmist initially until I delved into the subject, whether rightly or wrongly.

 

As for being a troll, if I qualify then it doesn't pay at all. (If you know of sources, please send contact info for who to see about receiving compensation as I can use the income supplement in retirement.) Perhaps based on one of the above studies concerning funding, I should change back to the warm side and see about getting a paycheque?

[G_R__E_G]

I think the main point that you're missing Al is that this is the Watercooler. It's called that for a reason. The watercooler is a place for light discussion. We come here for a brief respite from reading about compound squeezes and esoteric bidding systems to read about types of cheese and to possibly share a fart joke. If you'd like to discuss the effects of farting on global warming then I'm sure the audience would be more receptive.

[Al_U_Card]

I think the main point that you're missing Al is that this is the Watercooler. It's called that for a reason. The watercooler is a place for light discussion. We come here for a brief respite from reading about compound squeezes and esoteric bidding systems to read about types of cheese and to possibly share a fart joke. If you'd like to discuss the effects of farting on global warming then I'm sure the audience would be more receptive.

 

Ya, I tend to do that, despite having seen the results of the numerous religion/evolution/politics threads in here.

 

Mea maxima culpa, but I learn.

[Winstonm]

The problem I have with the skeptics reminds me of the scene from Dark Knight were Morgan Freeman has just been told by an accountant who is auditing Wayne Industry's books that he knows that money is being diverted and that he wants $10 million a year for life for not revealing who Batman really is, and Morgan Freeman responds by saying along the lines of "you are accusing one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful men of being a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands and your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck with that."

 

The skeptic seems willing to accuse the entirety of climate scientists worldwide and the associated sciences with conspiring to falsify the data in order to increase the net worth of Al Gore, and the data they produce as evidence of their claims is provided to them via the energy industry who earns billions of dollars annually by selling products that increase greenhouse gasses.

 

As Morgan Freeman might have said, "And your plan is to get the world to believe that climate scientists are evil and the Energy Industialists are white knights out to save us? Good luck with that."