Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

jshell

11,006 posts

204 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
Jalapenos
We know they are spicy. The presence of Jalapeno adds spiciness. We've also proven that adding CO2 doesn't necessarily add heat - see the last few years. So, it may not be CO2 that's the driving force. It MAY be something else...

//

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
Article said:
The climate system is conceptually complex but has at its heart the physical laws of radiative transfer. This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar's calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming.
Which is complete bks. The earth's energy balance has at it's heart radiative energy transfer. The Climate (as in within the bounds of the atmosphere) has conductive, evaporative and convective physical laws at its heart. If they can't get this right then they have been barking up the wrong Yamal tree.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Jinx said:
durbster said:
Article said:
The climate system is conceptually complex but has at its heart the physical laws of radiative transfer. This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar's calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming.
Which is complete bks. The earth's energy balance has at it's heart radiative energy transfer. The Climate (as in within the bounds of the atmosphere) has conductive, evaporative and convective physical laws at its heart. If they can't get this right then they have been barking up the wrong Yamal tree.
smile

It's all upside down, Mann!

Without a narrow focus on radiative transfer there's room for the other effects you mention to step in and take the place of the (non-)effects attributed to tax gas by assumption, which gas - as the faith demands - must have its space reserved.

Reflection might reasonably be seen as part of the radiative package, though it helps to lead on to a mention of the proven Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo forcing mechanism, an aspect of solar eruptivity not irradiance. Proven, but shhhh it must not be discussed, by order of a senior believer scientist.

Then there are top-down effects including the Bucha Auroral Oval solar eruptivity forcing mechanism which originates in the thermosphere and is at its heart a solar wind particle phenomenon.

Without the reserved space for tax gas this ^^ actual demonstrable peer-reviewed science might get a look-in, so the space stays reserved and rowlocks must be spouted with a straight face and ongoing political patronage.

DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Thanks to all who replied. I suppose the point really is quite neatly summed up by the below - I do take Durbs point about us needing an identical Earth to prove this absolutely but if the science was any use at all the 'robust projections' would surely have been a lot more accurate? Durbs - please correct me if I'm wrong but the projections have all been miles off haven't they? Or (playing devil's advocate) are the lack of accurate projections assumed to be down to the chef adding more crème fresh which has swamped the Jalapenos?

In which case where are we? Wait and see?

robinessex said:
Article said:
quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming.
Er, they've ALL BEEN WRONG !!

Lotus 50

1,009 posts

164 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
DibblyDobbler said:
Basically no, they aren't all wrong (see for example; http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Paper3_Implication... ) - although many of the graphs that people have posted in this forum take a limited number of the projections that show a narrow range of potential change so that the measured change falls outside of it.

Turbo bloke referred to other possible climate-forcing factors that may account for change in one of the posts above - I'd be interested to see any evidence that they have a significant impact that warrants their inclusion in models (if they aren't already taken into account as solar forcing factors). In coming to the conclusion that emissions caused by people are causing global warming scientists have taken these into account and shown that the only feasible explanation for much of the temp changes over the last 100 years is greenhouse gas emissions. Given the thousands of scientific papers published in this area demonstrating the changes that have and could potentially happen and explaining the mechanisms behind them (10,000 in the last IPCC assessment alone) to say that it isn't happening/not proven is implausible.

The political responses/debates however... are another thing.



s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
smile

It's all upside down, Mann!

Without a narrow focus on radiative transfer there's room for the other effects you mention to step in and take the place of the (non-)effects attributed to tax gas by assumption, which gas - as the faith demands - must have its space reserved.

Reflection might reasonably be seen as part of the radiative package, though it helps to lead on to a mention of the proven Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo forcing mechanism, an aspect of solar eruptivity not irradiance. Proven, but shhhh it must not be discussed, by order of a senior believer scientist.

Then there are top-down effects including the Bucha Auroral Oval solar eruptivity forcing mechanism which originates in the thermosphere and is at its heart a solar wind particle phenomenon.

Without the reserved space for tax gas this ^^ actual demonstrable peer-reviewed science might get a look-in, so the space stays reserved and rowlocks must be spouted with a straight face and ongoing political patronage.
Maybe the Russians have not been infected by political patronage (what! whoda thunk it). They have a model which performs rather well, but it assumes only 37% of the CO2 effect that the mainstream models have. ts called INMCM4.0 (hat tip WUWT)


DibblyDobbler

11,257 posts

196 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
Basically no, they aren't all wrong (see for example; http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Paper3_Implication... ) - although many of the graphs that people have posted in this forum take a limited number of the projections that show a narrow range of potential change so that the measured change falls outside of it.

Turbo bloke referred to other possible climate-forcing factors that may account for change in one of the posts above - I'd be interested to see any evidence that they have a significant impact that warrants their inclusion in models (if they aren't already taken into account as solar forcing factors). In coming to the conclusion that emissions caused by people are causing global warming scientists have taken these into account and shown that the only feasible explanation for much of the temp changes over the last 100 years is greenhouse gas emissions. Given the thousands of scientific papers published in this area demonstrating the changes that have and could potentially happen and explaining the mechanisms behind them (10,000 in the last IPCC assessment alone) to say that it isn't happening/not proven is implausible.

The political responses/debates however... are another thing.
Thanks for the reply smile I'll be honest a lot of that paper goes above my head/concentration span but I am guessing it says that some of the models are actually reasonably accurate?

Funny the fact that leapt out at me was:
Met Office Paper said:
There has been an increase in the global mean near-surface temperature of around 0.8°C since the global instrumental record began in the mid-19th century
So less than 1 degree in over 150 years!? Is that really what all the fuss is about?

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Which is why you never hear word mentioned of any "margin for error".

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
I stated quite correctly that the Arctic ice decline had ceased in the last decade (not that a decline indicates anything worrying anyway, that in itself is another warmist assertion).

Durbster said that the source I used for data (DMI) says "During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated......" that they are the experts and what could my 'opinion' possibly be worth. His quote is quite clearly attached to a graphic for 2000-2009 (period shown by green arrow in fig. below), with a declining trend, it is not applicable to my comment to the period with the red arrow.

Below is the PIOMAS model from 1979 to date (supposedly the start of the satellite era, but cherry picked to hide significantly lower ice levels immediately prior), quite clearly Arctic ice loss is not accelerating during the last 10 years, the trend is about flat.



The lack of decline over the last decade has exposed all of Durbster's esteemed climate experts and politicians as clueless charlatans.

(1) M. Murphy, New Scientist, 1960: “The Arctic ocean will be ice free the entire year before the end of the 20th century” (i.e. by the year 2000),

(2) “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen 1972: “The warming trend can produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

(3) Jay Zwally (NASA) said in December 2007 : “The Arctic Ocean could almost be ice-free in the summer of 2012” (National Geographic)

(4) Louis Fortier (Arctic Net, Canada) 2007: “The Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2010 or 2015”.

(5) David Barber (Univ. of Manitoba), 2008: “The North Pole could be ice-free this summer for the first time”: June 2008.

(6) Prof. W. Maslowski (US Naval Postgraduate School), 2008: “In summer 2013 we will have an ice-free Arctic”.

(7) Mark Serreze, NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Centre, Colorado, USA) in 2008: “The Arctic could be ice-free in 2012”.

(8) Al Gore, former US Vice President at the Copenhagen climate conference 2009: “Arctic will be ice-free in five years” = 2014.

(9) US-Senator John Kerry 2009: “The Arctic will be ice-free in 2013”.

(10) Prof. P. Wadhams (Cambridge University), 2007: said in 2007 that the Arctic ice was in a “death spiral”, and in 2011: “the ice could be completely gone in four years”, i.e. 2015.

To list but a few.

Well Durbster, you always claim that you will put your hands up and admit when you are wrong, so............ now that you obviously accept that my assessment of the state of the Arctic ice is correct, were you deliberately dishonest in your use of that quote, or just sloppy?

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
DibblyDobbler said:
Thanks to all who replied. I suppose the point really is quite neatly summed up by the below - I do take Durbs point about us needing an identical Earth to prove this absolutely but if the science was any use at all the 'robust projections' would surely have been a lot more accurate? Durbs - please correct me if I'm wrong but the projections have all been miles off haven't they? Or (playing devil's advocate) are the lack of accurate projections assumed to be down to the chef adding more crème fresh which has swamped the Jalapenos?

In which case where are we? Wait and see?

robinessex said:
Article said:
quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming.
Er, they've ALL BEEN WRONG !!
Jalapenos:

"This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar's calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming. The ESMs include not only the physical core but also climate feedbacks that introduce uncertainty into the projections in terms of magnitude, but not sign: positive (amplification of warming)."

So "robust projections of baseline warming" doesn't refer to the output from whole earth system models that attempt to model the whole climate system, but to the calculations of radiative forcing from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

This would be the 2 x CO2 = 3.7W/m2 radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which with all else held equal = ~1C temp increase that very few people dispute - even on the sceptic side.



mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
plunker said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Thanks to all who replied. I suppose the point really is quite neatly summed up by the below - I do take Durbs point about us needing an identical Earth to prove this absolutely but if the science was any use at all the 'robust projections' would surely have been a lot more accurate? Durbs - please correct me if I'm wrong but the projections have all been miles off haven't they? Or (playing devil's advocate) are the lack of accurate projections assumed to be down to the chef adding more crème fresh which has swamped the Jalapenos?

In which case where are we? Wait and see?

robinessex said:
Article said:
quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming.
Er, they've ALL BEEN WRONG !!
Jalapenos:

"This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar's calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming. The ESMs include not only the physical core but also climate feedbacks that introduce uncertainty into the projections in terms of magnitude, but not sign: positive (amplification of warming)."

So "robust projections of baseline warming" doesn't refer to the output from whole earth system models that attempt to model the whole climate system, but to the calculations of radiative forcing from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

This would be the 2 x CO2 = 3.7W/m2 radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which with all else held equal = ~1C temp increase that very few people dispute - even on the sceptic side.
But that doesn't translate into global wombling, as you're relying on "ALL ELSE HELD EQUAL", which is patent bks in a chaotic, externally influenced, system.

Cloud cover - constantly variable, surface albedo - constantly variable, solar output (all levels and frequencies) - constantly variable, solar wind - constantly variable. So how are you going to turn these variables into constants...

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
plunker said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Thanks to all who replied. I suppose the point really is quite neatly summed up by the below - I do take Durbs point about us needing an identical Earth to prove this absolutely but if the science was any use at all the 'robust projections' would surely have been a lot more accurate? Durbs - please correct me if I'm wrong but the projections have all been miles off haven't they? Or (playing devil's advocate) are the lack of accurate projections assumed to be down to the chef adding more crème fresh which has swamped the Jalapenos?

In which case where are we? Wait and see?

robinessex said:
Article said:
quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming.
Er, they've ALL BEEN WRONG !!
Jalapenos:

"This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar's calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming. The ESMs include not only the physical core but also climate feedbacks that introduce uncertainty into the projections in terms of magnitude, but not sign: positive (amplification of warming)."

So "robust projections of baseline warming" doesn't refer to the output from whole earth system models that attempt to model the whole climate system, but to the calculations of radiative forcing from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

This would be the 2 x CO2 = 3.7W/m2 radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which with all else held equal = ~1C temp increase that very few people dispute - even on the sceptic side.
But that doesn't translate into global wombling, as you're relying on "ALL ELSE HELD EQUAL", which is patent bks in a chaotic, externally influenced, system.

Cloud cover - constantly variable, surface albedo - constantly variable, solar output (all levels and frequencies) - constantly variable, solar wind - constantly variable. So how are you going to turn these variables into constants...
It doesn't translate into THEY'VE ALL BEEN WRONG either.

Yes, it's just the start - the 'kick' the ball is receiving. How far the ball rolls depends on other factors. For political reasons many here prefer to think the ball won't move at all of course, or even roll backwards, and jalapenos aren't in fact spicy at all wink

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
I stated quite correctly that the Arctic ice decline had ceased in the last decade (not that a decline indicates anything worrying anyway, that in itself is another warmist assertion).
...
Well Durbster, you always claim that you will put your hands up and admit when you are wrong, so............ now that you obviously accept that my assessment of the state of the Arctic ice is correct, were you deliberately dishonest in your use of that quote, or just sloppy?
Erm.

I never disputed your graph, I just put it into context. You said this year's ice extent was average for the last ten years. I showed where the last ten years sits in the long term.

The quote was from the organisation that you were pulling your data from. Here it is again:
DMI said:
Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.
So I'm afraid I'm struggling to figure out how you've manage to convince yourself you've been proved right, when the very people you're getting data from are saying the exact opposite. confused

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Wednesday 27th July 2016
quotequote all
I suppose this should really be a footnote in the Science thread .... but it's hard to believe that that it is really a story about scientists, especially scientists at Oxford.

So I'll drop it here.

Apparently the Oxford Natural history museum had it's glass roof panels replaced and re-sealed but in doing so they removed the UV coating from the glass to now that nasty UV radiation is destroying the exhibits.

An absolutely genius way to spend £2 million of someone's money.

Still, scientists have to be trusted - especially those from Oxford, right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-3...


turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 28th July 2016
quotequote all
LongQ said:
I suppose this should really be a footnote in the Science thread .... but it's hard to believe that that it is really a story about scientists, especially scientists at Oxford.

So I'll drop it here.

Apparently the Oxford Natural history museum had it's glass roof panels replaced and re-sealed but in doing so they removed the UV coating from the glass to now that nasty UV radiation is destroying the exhibits.

An absolutely genius way to spend £2 million of someone's money.

Still, scientists have to be trusted - especially those from Oxford, right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-3...
You have to suspect that a computer model 'proved' the costly new approach was myles better.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Thursday 28th July 2016
quotequote all
It occurs to me, being just a pratical engineer, with his feet firmly in the reality camp, that NO ONE KNOWS HOW MANY VARIABLES INFLUENCE THE PLANETS CLIMATE, hence any so called climate model is complete bks. GIGO it's know as. Remember the tree count recently that got the world tree number WRONG by a factor of 10 !!!

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 28th July 2016
quotequote all
robinessex said:
It occurs to me, being just a pratical engineer, with his feet firmly in the reality camp, that NO ONE KNOWS HOW MANY VARIABLES INFLUENCE THE PLANETS CLIMATE, hence any so called climate model is complete bks. GIGO it's know as. Remember the tree count recently that got the world tree number WRONG by a factor of 10 !!!
You don't need variables when you have faith.

Hallelujah, brother, send money.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Thursday 28th July 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
I stated quite correctly that the Arctic ice decline had ceased in the last decade (not that a decline indicates anything worrying anyway, that in itself is another warmist assertion).
...
Well Durbster, you always claim that you will put your hands up and admit when you are wrong, so............ now that you obviously accept that my assessment of the state of the Arctic ice is correct, were you deliberately dishonest in your use of that quote, or just sloppy?
Erm.

I never disputed your graph, I just put it into context. You said this year's ice extent was average for the last ten years. I showed where the last ten years sits in the long term.

The quote was from the organisation that you were pulling your data from. Here it is again:
DMI said:
Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.
So I'm afraid I'm struggling to figure out how you've manage to convince yourself you've been proved right, when the very people you're getting data from are saying the exact opposite. confused
the sea ice "debate" is the same as every other climate metric "debate". the alarmist position always relies on either cherry picking or ignoring certain pieces of scientific knowledge. climate models the same. no one denies the radiative physics ,the issue is their application outside the lab in the real world atmosphere .

anyone claiming the reduction of arctic sea ice in the satellite era is down to anthropogenic co2 emissions is making one serious leap of faith. oceanic cycles of energy accumulation /release are well known . these cycles are somewhere between 60 and 80 years in their entirety (amo/pdo) from cool to warm phase peaks .therefore to make any reasonable claim surely these cycles need to be studied . the fact they are out of sync suggests monitoring single cycles will only provide part of the picture ,so the current claims regarding the cause of reduced sea ice in the arctic appear way wide of the mark.

in doing a bit of reading i came across some information regarding residence time of the top 1500m of arctic basin water. it appears to be around 30 years . i can find no mention of this in any of the "science" surrounding current reduced sea ice extent.to be fair there may well be papers that do mention this, i just haven't found them. as most of the inflow and outflow of water to the arctic basin comes from the atlantic, it would be reasonable to assume the amo warm/cool cycle warrants a look.

the more ice in the arctic at any time of year (bar the two months where the sun gets high enough to make the net radiative balance slightly positive in the arctic ) the less heat is radiated to space. it looks a reasonable proposition to me that less ice is part of a cooling mechanism of the arctic and may even be the driver of the amo,as the ice melts more heat is lost to space (from atlantic water,producing cool water for the cold phase of the amo) until a point where the ice extent increases , insulates the sea surface allowing heat content to build (warm phase of amo) until the point melting increases and the cycle starts all over again.

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Thursday 28th July 2016
quotequote all
plunker said:
This would be the 2 x CO2 = 3.7W/m2 radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which with all else held equal = ~1C temp increase that very few people dispute - even on the sceptic side.
And given in any column of air we have ice/water/vapour which if you add energy merely changes the ratio and not the temperature the 1C disappears very quickly. The whole CO2 forcing is based on dry air experimentation - on a water planet this seems a little blinkered and down right wrong. FFS the atmosphere is a heat pump - until there is no more water to pump the damn thing will never over heat ergo Catastophic Climate Change by CO2 is impossible on a planet with oceans and carbon based life forms.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 28th July 2016
quotequote all
The sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small perturbations as those associated with forced climate change. The small imbalance involved is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The effect of CO2 forcing “is lost in the noise of uncertainty" (Hoffman).

As a result it's hardly surprising that there's no visible causal signal in global climate data. Dangerous manmade climate change is nowhere to be seen.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED