Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[LongQ]

zbc said:

I like it too. Clearly the science isn't completely settled. I don't think anyone claims that it is, there is more and more to learn and it's great that scientists continue to challenge this established thinking.

There are a number of people in the UK's scientific establishment and, previously, in the ROW's scientific establishment who would claim that the science is settled and have been doing so for a decade and more.

That, of course, is what the politicians listened to and there has been no sign so far that they are likely to change that view.

The paper, with a number of names attached to it that are somewhat surprising at first sight, seems to be back-pedalling somewhat. But is it?

Perhaps, post COP21 and the decisions about CSIRO in Australia, which may be the tip of the "deal is done" redirection of funding, what we are reading is the beginning of a re-positioning exercise along with a justification for re-writing historical records and research.

I will confess that I gained that impression mainly from the conclusion. The rest, from the bits I sampled, read like padding. Politicians will only be interested in the conclusion - if they are interested at all.

Edited by LongQ on Thursday 3rd March 12:31

[plunker]

Thar she blows...



http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 2nd March 23:29

[zbc]

zbc said:

Clearly the science isn't completely settled.

Sorry this was a lazy phrase and not suited to the Scientific Debate thread. What I should have said is that nobody believes that we completely understand the climate and all of the factors influencing the recent warming, and in particular the very recent changes. Many scientists are however clearly satisfied that man is behind it and largely responsible for these changes and to that extent the science is settled in their minds.

[Silver Smudger]

zbc said:

zbc said:

Clearly the science isn't completely settled.

Sorry this was a lazy phrase and not suited to the Scientific Debate thread. What I should have said is that nobody believes that we completely understand the climate and all of the factors influencing the recent warming, and in particular the very recent changes. Many scientists are however clearly satisfied that man is behind it and largely responsible for these changes and to that extent the science is settled in their minds.

What I would have said is, that nobody believes that we completely understand the climate and all of the factors influencing the recent warming, and in particular the very recent changes, which explains why all the alarmist predictions are so wildly inaccurate.
Many scientists are however clearly satisfied to continue riding the gravy train that the taxpayer is funding to that extent the scientists are settled in their beliefs.
But that is where we differ.

[zbc]

Although my wife did tell me yesterday that someone had told her that the Storks were back in Alsace already this year a month earlier than usual because it's so mild. Surely the science is settled now?

[PRTVR]

zbc said:

Although my wife did tell me yesterday that someone had told her that the Storks were back in Alsace already this year a month earlier than usual because it's so mild. Surely the science is settled now?

Not so quick, it may be the storks are causing the mild weather, when they turn up does the weather turn warmer? If so it must be the storks.

[mackie1]

Anyone have any comments on this alarmist claptrap?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01...

[LongQ]

mackie1 said:

Anyone have any comments on this alarmist claptrap?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01...

"Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University."

There may be some related causality somewhere among these names?

As I recall Slate is generally supportive of the "sustainability" narrative.

The chap leading Arizona State Uni certainly seems to be of the same mind

https://president.asu.edu/about/michaelcrow

As I read it New America is unlikely to be a poor fit with the the two.

Edited by LongQ on Monday 7th March 13:03

[Jinx]

plunker said:

Thar she blows...



http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 2nd March 23:29

But plunks you kept telling us the satellite data was no good

[LongQ]

This looks like an interesting discussion to follow.

Bear in mind it is being moderated to try to ensure that it is kept on topic, relevant and polite. I would guess that unless you are a geologist it might be tricky to come up with a totally relevant observation at this time. That may change as the discussion progresses.

http://euanmearns.com/can-geology-tell-us-what-is-...

[nammynake]

Can anyone point me towards a summary article (or video) which gives an independent and unbiased review of the science? I have a PhD in Astrophysics, so happy with relatively technical articles, although I have no knowledge of climate science. I'd like to form an informed view, without any of the politically-motivated nonsense.

Thanks

[Ali G]

I am neither advocating the following site, nor dismissing it's content.

http://barrettbellamyclimate.com/

The 'Bellamy' is David Bellamy btw.

As in all matters relating to 'climate science' form your own opinion, but preferably form an opinion based upon sound laws and principles of science - which are hard to come by in msm. Unraveling the mechanism behind how MMGW 'should' work, and reconciling that to known laws of Physics can be a challenge!

[CR6ZZ]

It is almost impossible to find a single site that does not push a particular agenda. The Barrett/Bellamy site and the similarly veined https://wattsupwiththat.com both take the denial point of view. For balance, you should also look at http://www.realclimate.org and http://www.skepticalscience.com, both of which take the opposing view.

Reading the IPCC reports is tedious, but worthwhile.

Being a scientist myself I tend to read published papers that I find on my own, rather than just reading those that are put forward by a particular advocacy group/blog. I also find talking to the actual scientists who are actively involved in doing the research is helpful.

NOAA (http://www.noaa.gov/climate) and NASA (http://climate.nasa.gov) regularly update their websites with new findings, but they are generally potted versions and, once again, I find it more helpful to go back and read the journal articles.

Potholer45 is a journalist who posts reasonably regular videos on a wide range of topics, including climate change, religion, and science in general (you need to hunt around to find pertinent ones). Once again, a particular agenda is being pushed, but his videos are usually entertaining and the discussions associated with some are often quite amusing.

https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos

[hairykrishna]

nammynake said:

Can anyone point me towards a summary article (or video) which gives an independent and unbiased review of the science? I have a PhD in Astrophysics, so happy with relatively technical articles, although I have no knowledge of climate science. I'd like to form an informed view, without any of the politically-motivated nonsense.

Thanks

I find that Science of Doom ( https://scienceofdoom.com/ ) is pretty good. It has slightly more in depth explanations than most of the other pop. science articles. Some will find it biased so all the usual disclaimers.

Given that you're starting from the same point as I was a few years back (i.e. physics PhD in a different area) I have a more heavy duty recommendation if you really want to get into it. It's a text book rather than a website; 'Principles of Planetary Climate' by Pierrehumbert. It's about 45 quid new but I managed to get a copy for ~25 a whiles back. Most of it also available online as a free pdf. It's essentially the coursebook for an undergraduate course in climate so is not as hand wavy as most online sources.

[durbster]

I don't know what it's like but remember seeing this recently - a full course available for free here:
http://www.openculture.com/2012/01/global_warming_...

Here's the YouTube playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFA75A0DDB8...

It looks like it's aimed more at laymen like me, however, so might be a bit too lightweight for anyone with more solid foundations.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

I don't know what it's like but remember seeing this recently - a full course available for free here:
http://www.openculture.com/2012/01/global_warming_...

From the description "human activity and ever-increasing carbon levels disrupt the equilibrium of the environment"

"Equilibrium"????

IPCC AR4 said:

"we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

Sound like equilibrium to you?
The climate is an evolutionary stable chaotic system governed by the properties of H2O and not some delicate house of cards based on a molecule that only has two states and a narrow band of IR absorption.

[durbster]

Well yes, I think the IPCC's description is more appropriate. Nature is certainly chaos.

[Halb]

This popped up on my youtube feed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE&fe...

the sea temp is going up, so that's wht the air temp hasn't gone up?

the ice packs are rapidly dwindling.

Any thoughts?
No fighting, I'm not an advocate, for those that don't know me.

[Jinx]

Halb said:

This popped up on my youtube feed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE&fe...

the sea temp is going up, so that's wht the air temp hasn't gone up?

the ice packs are rapidly dwindling.

Any thoughts?
No fighting, I'm not an advocate, for those that don't know me.

Sea temps are now dropping after the El Nino event (this is actually when the pacific ocean loses energy gained to space - try "Who Turned On the Heat" by Bib Tisdale -free PDF) and the NOAA has the projection of a drop to normal in the next few months (a drop to La Nina conditions could easily be on the cards and with the AMO dropping to negative conditions we could be in for some interesting weather) .
The Artic Ice has only matched the lowest extent in the satellite record (which only dates back to the cold 70s era) and as it is all sea ice isn't a threat to sea levels - without the ice the artic ocean will be able to lose more energy to space so could easily be a negative feedback (given the angle of incidence of sunlight during the summer months open water at artic latitudes provides an equivalent albedo as the ice) .
The Antarctic has had broken records for maximums over the last few years but this year seems fairly average so nothing to talk about.

[mondeoman]

"I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 microns we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole."


So what is going on with ozone? What is the impact on temps? Didn't we kill that with aerosols?