Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

Just look at the conclusion !!

That's what I figured - the conclusion is all that matters to you

Isn't that the point of everything?

Clearly for some - if it were claimed the moon is made of cheese therefore we don't need to do anything about increasing CO2, they would nod along.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

Just look at the conclusion !!

That's what I figured - the conclusion is all that matters to you

Isn't that the point of everything?

Clearly for some - it it were claimed the moon is made of cheese therefore we don't need to do anything about increasing CO2, they would nod along.

Great answer !! Useless of course, and another case of believers ignoring the message.

[Halb]

andy_s said:

It was truncated - here's the full link I hope: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-985b9374-...

thanks, man.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

Just look at the conclusion !!

That's what I figured - the conclusion is all that matters to you

Isn't that the point of everything?

Clearly for some - it it were claimed the moon is made of cheese therefore we don't need to do anything about increasing CO2, they would nod along.

Great answer !! Useless of course, and another case of believers ignoring the message.

I'll ask again. Monckton's view of the radiative imbalance created by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is completely mainstream. Have you changed your mind about that now?

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

I'll ask again. Monckton's view of the radiative imbalance created by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is completely mainstream. Have you changed your mind about that now?

Further, Monckton has a model for how he thinks internal climate feedback processes work and based on that model he's produced a very tight prediction for how much warming the CO2 forcing will result in.

You've previously stated the the climate is too chaotic to model - have you changed your mind about that too?

[Jasey_]

Halb said:

andy_s said:

It was truncated - here's the full link I hope: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-985b9374-...

thanks, man.

Apologies - A kindly mod closed the separate thread I started on this and didn't move the post in here - When I copied and pasted it truncated it !

Anyway - it's still an interesting "phenomenon"

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

Just look at the conclusion !!

That's what I figured - the conclusion is all that matters to you

Isn't that the point of everything?

Clearly for some - it it were claimed the moon is made of cheese therefore we don't need to do anything about increasing CO2, they would nod along.

Great answer !! Useless of course, and another case of believers ignoring the message.

I'll ask again. Monckton's view of the radiative imbalance created by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is completely mainstream. Have you changed your mind about that now?

Don't answer a question with a question

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

stew-STR160 said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

Just look at the conclusion !!

That's what I figured - the conclusion is all that matters to you

Isn't that the point of everything?

Clearly for some - it it were claimed the moon is made of cheese therefore we don't need to do anything about increasing CO2, they would nod along.

Great answer !! Useless of course, and another case of believers ignoring the message.

I'll ask again. Monckton's view of the radiative imbalance created by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is completely mainstream. Have you changed your mind about that now?

Don't answer a question with a question

righto

[V10leptoquark]

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

Fundamental errors on the believer camp.
Now I guess we all await the error reporting process to go through the IPCC and for the result to pop out the other end.

Shall we take bets ?

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

Don't answer a question with a question

Best stick to posting bbc links on the politics thread eh robinessex?

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Don't answer a question with a question

Best stick to posting bbc links on the politics thread eh robinessex?

You haven't changed. No intelligent reply. Can you refute Monckton's conclusion in his video? Probably no, as you never understood chaos theory either.

As you mentioned the Beeb, try this:-

http://www.civitas.org.uk/2019/07/05/crowdfunding-...

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Don't answer a question with a question

Best stick to posting bbc links on the politics thread eh robinessex?

You haven't changed. No intelligent reply. Can you refute Monckton's conclusion in his video? Probably no, as you never understood chaos theory either.

As you mentioned the Beeb, try this:-

http://www.civitas.org.uk/2019/07/05/crowdfunding-...

You've refuted it yourself many times - the climate is too chaotic to model, and CO2 does nowt cos it's just a trace gas, and there's no proof that it has any effect.

[anonymous-user]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

Don't answer a question with a question

Best stick to posting bbc links on the politics thread eh robinessex?

You haven't changed. No intelligent reply. Can you refute Monckton's conclusion in his video? Probably no, as you never understood chaos theory either.

As you mentioned the Beeb, try this:-

http://www.civitas.org.uk/2019/07/05/crowdfunding-...

You've refuted it yourself many times - the climate is too chaotic to model, and CO2 does nowt cos it's just a trace gas, and there's no proof that it has any effect.

Poor Robin’s been peddling this rubbish all over PHs lately.

He initially thought he’d finally got the evidence to overthrow the scientific consensus but doesn’t realise it’s a YouTube video based on years old already refuted data.

I think he’s realising now though bless.

Robin seriously, stick to posting bbc links and making up lies in the politics threads. You’re so obviously completely out of your depth.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 6th August 21:42

[Gandahar]

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Arctic sea ice extent in July tracked at record low levels for multiple individual days and for the month as a whole. During the second half of the month, air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean returned to average, while Europe experienced another record-breaking heat wave. By the end of the month, the European heat wave had moved north, enhancing melt over the Greenland ice sheet."

"Arctic sea ice extent for July 2019 set a new record low of 7.59 million square kilometers "

Interesting that open water again to the north of greenland twice in two years, I wonder how far it will extend



First circumnavigation of Greenland in the future?

The big news is still happening in the Antarctic though.

"While an overall positive linear trend is still evident in the 40-year Antarctic sea ice extent record, variability dominates, with 2014 being a record high maximum and 2017 a record low maximum extent."

That is some flip over 3 years and the scientists could not explain it and still cannot.

Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 7th August 00:20

[Gandahar]

By the way the sentence

"Can you refute Monckton's conclusion in his video?"

on a science thread does seem rather an oxymoron.

Monkeyktown ... video ....

Can we get this thread back to science like my post above ?

[stew-STR160]

Gandahar said:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Arctic sea ice extent in July tracked at record low levels for multiple individual days and for the month as a whole. During the second half of the month, air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean returned to average, while Europe experienced another record-breaking heat wave. By the end of the month, the European heat wave had moved north, enhancing melt over the Greenland ice sheet."

"Arctic sea ice extent for July 2019 set a new record low of 7.59 million square kilometers "

Interesting that open water again to the north of greenland twice in two years, I wonder how far it will extend



First circumnavigation of Greenland in the future?

The big news is still happening in the Antarctic though.

"While an overall positive linear trend is still evident in the 40-year Antarctic sea ice extent record, variability dominates, with 2014 being a record high maximum and 2017 a record low maximum extent."

That is some flip over 3 years and the scientists could not explain it and still cannot.

Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 7th August 00:20

It'll be interesting to see what the Greenland melt reveals when it recedes a bit further inland.

No mention of record cold July for much of the US despite the Euro heatwave...

[Kawasicki]

Gandahar said:

By the way the sentence

"Can you refute Monckton's conclusion in his video?"

on a science thread does seem rather an oxymoron.

Monkeyktown ... video ....

Can we get this thread back to science like my post above ?

No disrepect intended, but is it scientific to attempt to draw conclusions over incredibly short timeframes? Seeing patterns where none exist?

[robinessex]

Kawasicki said:

Gandahar said:

By the way the sentence

"Can you refute Monckton's conclusion in his video?"

on a science thread does seem rather an oxymoron.

Monkeyktown ... video ....

Can we get this thread back to science like my post above ?

No disrepect intended, but is it scientific to attempt to draw conclusions over incredibly short timeframes? Seeing patterns where none exist?

They took THE IPCC time scale and redid the maths. Oops, a lower temperature calculated.

[stew-STR160]

I can't read the full paper as it's behind pay wall.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0551-4

Abstract-

Observations show that reduced regional sea-ice cover is coincident with cold mid-latitude winters on interannual timescales. However, it remains unclear whether these observed links are causal, and model experiments suggest that they might not be. Here we apply two independent approaches to infer causality from observations and climate models and to reconcile these sources of data. Models capture the observed correlations between reduced sea ice and cold mid-latitude winters, but only when reduced sea ice coincides with anomalous heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean, implying that the atmosphere is driving the loss. Causal inference from the physics-based approach is corroborated by a lead–lag analysis, showing that circulation-driven temperature anomalies precede, but do not follow, reduced sea ice. Furthermore, no mid-latitude cooling is found in modelling experiments with imposed future sea-ice loss. Our results show robust support for anomalous atmospheric circulation simultaneously driving cold mid-latitude winters and mild Arctic conditions, and reduced sea ice having a minimal influence on severe mid-latitude winters.

[tomw2000]

Interested 'non-proper-scientist' layman on this topic (and the associated 'politics' one in the NPE forum) so please be gentle.

I wanted some help to understand 'increased rate of change' that I see referred to a lot.

Let's assume that manmade C02 is increasing and it is causing global warming/climate change (…).

Is the argument, that the rate of warming is getting quicker now and that rate is increasing because we're pouring more C02 into the atmosphere generally or does the rate of change in manmade warming/climate change increase above certain levels of PPM of C02 in the atmosphere? OR is a combination of the two?

Probably doesn't make sense, but I know what I mean.

What I am trying to understand is why didn't the rate of manmade C02 cause climate/warming accelerate a lot quicker once the Industrial Revolution kicked off and we started burning coal like billy-o. But I'd guess that's because population levels were loads lower and total C02 output was an order of magnitude lower then?

Just re-read and still not sure I am making sense, hopefully someone will work it out and clarify for me.

I think in summary: - does the rate of increase in manmade climate change/warming accelerate exponentially as the total PPM C02 in the atmosphere increases?