Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gandahar said:
Arctic ice loss running close to 2016 values.
Which is good because 2016 was not an exceptional year, like 2007 or 2012, but just average.
Is that annual or cumulative total? News article last night covered two sailing ships that were trying to make it all the way to the pole as there was even less ice this year. Which is good because 2016 was not an exceptional year, like 2007 or 2012, but just average.
Toltec said:
Gandahar said:
Arctic ice loss running close to 2016 values.
Which is good because 2016 was not an exceptional year, like 2007 or 2012, but just average.
Is that annual or cumulative total? News article last night covered two sailing ships that were trying to make it all the way to the pole as there was even less ice this year. Which is good because 2016 was not an exceptional year, like 2007 or 2012, but just average.
With circumnavigation of the Arctic is seems to be an endeavour now steeped in politics or this that and the other. You can get through but is might be tighter than you think and the Arctic summer is still only August into September for both passages,
These people in their boats show ice extent decline in the micro sense rather than the big picture, so I disregard them.
Meanwhile in the Antarctic..
My next post.
Gandahar said:
The Antarctic is currently undergoing a massive loss of sea ice since 2015 after two massive increases in 2013 and 2014.
Why?
Even the global ice content gets skewed.
Surely it just goes up and down naturally ? why does there have to be a reason outside natural variation due to weather patterns,, do we have enough data over a sufficient period of time to make any judgement, I think part of the problem is if you go looking for a problem you will usually find one. Why?
Even the global ice content gets skewed.
This from the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/01/pa...
No clearly this subject is not related to Climate Change or Climate Change science but it does make some observations about the challenges and pressures on people involved in somewhat unique and highly specialised areas of scientific knowledge and research, in this case in medicine.
I think, based on discussions with people in the area of scientific research and particularly those in academia, there seems to be much of the same competition and little that is significantly different - except the subject of the research.
I would pick some especially pertinent paragraphs to quote but on re-reading there are many that would qualify and mostly the relevance of the comments in one paragraph pretty much rely on having read the one before.
The overall message is about being cautious of unquestioned specialist science in niche subjects with considerable "human interest" content potential, no matter how far into the future that interest may be "fulfillable".
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/01/pa...
No clearly this subject is not related to Climate Change or Climate Change science but it does make some observations about the challenges and pressures on people involved in somewhat unique and highly specialised areas of scientific knowledge and research, in this case in medicine.
I think, based on discussions with people in the area of scientific research and particularly those in academia, there seems to be much of the same competition and little that is significantly different - except the subject of the research.
I would pick some especially pertinent paragraphs to quote but on re-reading there are many that would qualify and mostly the relevance of the comments in one paragraph pretty much rely on having read the one before.
The overall message is about being cautious of unquestioned specialist science in niche subjects with considerable "human interest" content potential, no matter how far into the future that interest may be "fulfillable".
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 3rd September 16:37
PRTVR said:
Surely it just goes up and down naturally ? why does there have to be a reason outside natural variation due to weather patterns,, do we have enough data over a sufficient period of time to make any judgement, I think part of the problem is if you go looking for a problem you will usually find one.
Well that's the big question isn't it, how does nature behave at the poles. And if some sudden change, why? And can you say, without that much data man is making an impact and how much. But, it is going down at the moment at Arctic and Antarctic. Rather than arguing it is not, as some US websites do, and they do tend to be USA based,it is going down. Worth followingUS web sites tend to make things up as well, to prove a point, why not just wait and see?
Note I am not pro AGW, I am pro science.
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 3rd September 00:00
How US climate science blogs manipulate to put their viewpoint across.
Original graph above, heavily altered graph below, with my own synopsis in red as removed from the original.
So they ignored what the paper was about by removing the summary, they deleted most of the graph and then they added their own labels !
Nice work. That "modified" graph is now going the rounds to "show something" when the original author meant nothing of the kind, all down to an over enthusiastic web site blogger in the USA ( had to be) who decided to be dumb that day.
If you ever see this graph then just laugh and walk on by.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
Original graph above, heavily altered graph below, with my own synopsis in red as removed from the original.
So they ignored what the paper was about by removing the summary, they deleted most of the graph and then they added their own labels !
Nice work. That "modified" graph is now going the rounds to "show something" when the original author meant nothing of the kind, all down to an over enthusiastic web site blogger in the USA ( had to be) who decided to be dumb that day.
If you ever see this graph then just laugh and walk on by.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 3rd September 00:02
Gandahar said:
PRTVR said:
Surely it just goes up and down naturally ? why does there have to be a reason outside natural variation due to weather patterns,, do we have enough data over a sufficient period of time to make any judgement, I think part of the problem is if you go looking for a problem you will usually find one.
Well that's the big question isn't it, how does nature behave at the poles. And if some sudden change, why? And can you say, without that much data man is making an impact and how much. But, it is going down at the moment at Arctic and Antarctic. Rather than arguing it is not, as some US websites do, and they do tend to be USA based,it is going down. Worth followingUS web sites tend to make things up as well, to prove a point, why not just wait and see?
Note I am not pro AGW, I am pro science.
Did you read the emails?
Gandahar said:
How US climate science blogs manipulate to put their viewpoint across.
Original graph above, heavily altered graph below, with my own synopsis in red as removed from the original.
So they ignored what the paper was about by removing the summary, they deleted most of the graph and then they added their own labels !
Nice work. That "modified" graph is now going the rounds to "show something" when the original author meant nothing of the kind, all down to an over enthusiastic web site blogger in the USA ( had to be) who decided to be dumb that day.
If you ever see this graph then just laugh and walk on by.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
But the data in the graph itself hasn't been altered. The graph is a plot of sea ice cover over time, is it not ok to use as data of sea ice cover over time?Original graph above, heavily altered graph below, with my own synopsis in red as removed from the original.
So they ignored what the paper was about by removing the summary, they deleted most of the graph and then they added their own labels !
Nice work. That "modified" graph is now going the rounds to "show something" when the original author meant nothing of the kind, all down to an over enthusiastic web site blogger in the USA ( had to be) who decided to be dumb that day.
If you ever see this graph then just laugh and walk on by.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 3rd September 00:02
Way back above I suggested that global warming would lead to more extreme weather events due to the increase in energy in the system. This was shot down, sorry my background is physics not climate science, as according to the IPCC warming would lead to lower temperature differentials so storms would be less severe.
Oddly on the BBC, yes I know, last night they were doing the, 'Is the extra hugeness of Irma down to GW?' speech.
Confused???
Oddly on the BBC, yes I know, last night they were doing the, 'Is the extra hugeness of Irma down to GW?' speech.
Confused???
Toltec said:
Way back above I suggested that global warming would lead to more extreme weather events due to the increase in energy in the system. This was shot down, sorry my background is physics not climate science, as according to the IPCC warming would lead to lower temperature differentials so storms would be less severe.
Oddly on the BBC, yes I know, last night they were doing the, 'Is the extra hugeness of Irma down to GW?' speech.
Confused???
Is Irma extra huge? How does anyone know that?Oddly on the BBC, yes I know, last night they were doing the, 'Is the extra hugeness of Irma down to GW?' speech.
Confused???
Toltec said:
Way back above I suggested that global warming would lead to more extreme weather events due to the increase in energy in the system. This was shot down, sorry my background is physics not climate science, as according to the IPCC warming would lead to lower temperature differentials so storms would be less severe.
Oddly on the BBC, yes I know, last night they were doing the, 'Is the extra hugeness of Irma down to GW?' speech.
Confused???
Recent years have shown a dramatic reduction in the amount of hurricanes reaching landfall indicating global warming. With the recent temperature drop after the 2015/16 super El Nino there has been a return of hurricane activity . Do we blame GW? Or not enough GW?Oddly on the BBC, yes I know, last night they were doing the, 'Is the extra hugeness of Irma down to GW?' speech.
Confused???
Jinx said:
Recent years have shown a dramatic reduction in the amount of hurricanes reaching landfall indicating global warming. With the recent temperature drop after the 2015/16 super El Nino there has been a return of hurricane activity . Do we blame GW? Or not enough GW?
Thank you, a simple and consistent explanation. I have been trying to find the science behind climate science recently rather than treating it as contradictory b
ks. Toltec said:
Thank you, a simple and consistent explanation. I have been trying to find the science behind climate science recently rather than treating it as contradictory bks.
The NOAA did a summary of the current science of any possible links between global warming and hurricanes here:ks. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurri...
Summary:
NOAA said:
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Edited by durbster on Friday 8th September 22:36
durbster said:
Toltec said:
Thank you, a simple and consistent explanation. I have been trying to find the science behind climate science recently rather than treating it as contradictory bks.
The NOAA did a summary of the current science of any possible links between global warming and hurricanes here:ks. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurri...
Summary:
NOAA said:
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Edited by durbster on Friday 8th September 22:36
Toltec said:
Jinx said:
Recent years have shown a dramatic reduction in the amount of hurricanes reaching landfall indicating global warming. With the recent temperature drop after the 2015/16 super El Nino there has been a return of hurricane activity . Do we blame GW? Or not enough GW?
Thank you, a simple and consistent explanation. I have been trying to find the science behind climate science recently rather than treating it as contradictory bks. Whether there is a connection between the storms of Harvey, Irma and Joey all lined up and the recent huge solar flares and CMEs is not yet proven but it's interesting that they are all happening around the same time.
I.e. we've had 12 years of a fairly quiet sun and no hurricanes/storms, then the sun wakes up in a big way closely followed by three in a row. The correlation is interesting and possibly worth further investigation. Climate wackos forget that the earth spends 24/7 bathed in a constant stream of particles and radiation from the sun and we also live in the sun's magnetosphere which acts as a cloak for galactic and cosmic radiation - so it's possible that this has more of an effect on the climate than the latest Range Rover my neighbour bought.
The sun's roughly 11 year cycle of activity is the basis of Weatheraction's forecasting.
http://www.weatheraction.com/
This is owned by Piers Corbyn, older brother of Jeremy Corbyn and the brains in the family.
http://www.weatheraction.com/
This is owned by Piers Corbyn, older brother of Jeremy Corbyn and the brains in the family.
jet_noise said:
robinessex said:
NOAA, great big might, maybe, possiblely, hence a fairy story. Thought this was the Science forum !!!
You forgot "models" as well.I'm convinced /sarc
Are you convinced by them?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff