Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#1469876 - 01/09/2018 07:40 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3308
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Kino


Given the historic records are daily homogenised and discarded, how do we even know what the real base is? I mean, Blair Trewin regularly on this forum discounts and disregards historical temp records.


Unadjusted data shows the same warming rate. Data sets that focus only on the best quality rural stations show similar warming rates.
Satellite records as calculated by Roy Spencer (who believes climate change is a hoax) shows a slightly lower warming rate. Satellite records as calculated by another scientist who accepts the climate change consensus show a slightly higher warming rate. The majority of glaciers are retreating. Cherries are flowering earlier. Species are migrating towards the poles.

Originally Posted By: Kino
If they're so unreliable, how can we then base a forecast on them?

The forecast is not based on past warming rates but phsyics. The first predictions of warming was in the late 70s when most believed the earth was cooling (limited records based primarily in NH, later more extensive analysis including SH and older records showed an overall warming trend with a 30 year pause). The warming observed over the nearly 40 years since these predictions were made is a powerful confirmation of the theory.

Top
#1469877 - 01/09/2018 07:42 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: adon]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3308
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: adon
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
[quote=Petros]


....or when "that time doesn't come" , well we simply take the next soft issue and run with it (and pretend we never said anything!). Remember recently "no snow, dont build dams as they wont fill, huge sea level rises that never transpired in the sea level townships around Aus).


Predictions like that come from media reports, but are not found in serious climate science projections, and cannot be found in any of the models.

A quote from a researcher

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.


That is a media report, and such predictions cannot be found in any research paper or climate model

Top
#1469878 - 01/09/2018 07:46 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: adon]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3308
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: adon
Antarctica is back to normal-above normal this year and the Arctic Minimum ice extent has been getting larger for the last 4or 5 years. This year I particular has a lot of quite thick ice left so I would be treating that statement with a rather large pinch of salt. Greenland is gaining ice already this year according to the Danish meteorological society


The overall trend in global sea ice and snow is clearly downwards. There have always been short term rises within this trend.

Originally Posted By: adon
As a side note the leader of this fascinating modern day religion has foretold of the arctic being ice free by 2012 then it was 2014/6/8 and now somewhoin the 2020s.


No scientific paper, or climate model has ever predicted such thing. Some sceintists, but certainly not the 'leader' had speculated that the Arctic may have been ice free by about 2016. They should have looked at the models and the peer reviewed science. I told you this before.

Top
#1469884 - 01/09/2018 08:57 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5328
Loc: Not tellin!
So the quote I posted above from a researcher doesn’t count? What about this one from Micheal Mann... if not the leader, definitely a high priest

"It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly," Mann had this to say: "Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge."

The public don’t look at the models let alone the datat and certainly not the raw, in adjusted data. They rely on media reports and when the “leaders” of the scam make claims like this, it might as well be in the models

Top
#1469886 - 01/09/2018 09:06 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7384
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Reading back over recent posts, it seems the warmists have returned to the claim that the climate variability realists among-st us do not acknowledge that the world has been in a warming cycle over the past century or so.

Realists have always said the climate operates in cycles, perpetuated by inputs far more significant than man made emissions. Isn't it now an accepted scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 at 2,000ppm has been found in ice cores from centuries ago?

I think most of the angst is from warmists struggling to accept the world temperatures have peaked for this particular cycle hence lash out in confusion/frustration.

When the next world cooling cycle gathers strength, the oceans will again absorb more CO2, leaving this over populated world struggling to feed itself IMO.

Top
#1469892 - 01/09/2018 10:18 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
RC Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 29/09/2007
Posts: 2342
Loc: near Rockhampton, Qld
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber


The overall trend in global sea ice and snow is clearly downwards. There have always been short term rises within this trend.



How do we know the current downward trend is not just a blip in a much longer trend?

That is the thing we need tens of thousands of years of data to find a trend.

We simply do not have the raw data.

Top
#1469897 - 01/09/2018 11:29 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Ronfishes Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2013
Posts: 3657
Loc: Gordonvale
Here is a basic chart of CO2 going back 400,000 years:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
_________________________

MTD: 13.8mm

YTD: 2227mm

Top
#1469898 - 01/09/2018 12:15 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: RC]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7230
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
Originally Posted By: RC
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber


The overall trend in global sea ice and snow is clearly downwards. There have always been short term rises within this trend.



How do we know the current downward trend is not just a blip in a much longer trend?

That is the thing we need tens of thousands of years of data to find a trend.

We simply do not have the raw data.


Exactly my main argument for the against camp...

Top
#1469900 - 01/09/2018 12:32 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 321
Originally Posted By: Petros
Reading back over recent posts, it seems the warmists have returned to the claim that the climate variability realists among-st us do not acknowledge that the world has been in a warming cycle over the past century or so.

Realists have always said the climate operates in cycles, perpetuated by inputs far more significant than man made emissions. Isn't it now an accepted scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 at 2,000ppm has been found in ice cores from centuries ago?

I think most of the angst is from warmists struggling to accept the world temperatures have peaked for this particular cycle hence lash out in confusion/frustration.

When the next world cooling cycle gathers strength, the oceans will again absorb more CO2, leaving this over populated world struggling to feed itself IMO.


This level of intellectual infirmary really does beggar belief. Do you even understand anything about CO2 absorption by the Oceans? Yes CO2 is more readily absorbed and turned into carbonic acid in dense cold sea water, but these waters have already become more acidic and are loosing their ability to act as a carbon sink, basic acids and bases chemistry. Plus the acidification of the oceans is harmful in many ways, marine invertebrates being just one example given acidic waters are harmful to shell formation. Not everything is about god damn temperature! Plants do not need us adding CO2 to the atmosphere and studies now suggest that too much CO2 actually lowers the ability of plant uptake of minerals thereby lessening the nutritional value of our food.

There is no evidence to suggest we are going to enter some cooling period.

I struggle to see how some think that because the climate has changed in the past somehow that negates the need to understand how adding a new variable into the system changes the system. The same luddites seem to have no problem when it’s the natural world that throws up change to atmospheric composition, such as during a large volcanic eruption, but then when CO2 levels are the highest they’ve been in 400,000 years due to human actions and the environment is unequivocally responding, suddenly we have all this garbage like the climate’s always changing it’s all natural variability.

I’m not adding anymore to this debate. It’s completely pointless trying to talk science with people who have no sense of probabilistic reasoning and event outcomes when applied to a non steady state system.

Top
#1469901 - 01/09/2018 13:04 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
ashestoashes Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 22/10/2017
Posts: 454
Loc: Voyager Point (South West Sydn...
People are often calling for a record of temperatures over the long term and that exists in the isotope Oxygen-18 which has allowed us to keep a temperature trend over millions of years. This graph also combines CO2 levels, which indicates how the temperature changes with these changes in CO2. Also something to watch is that these temperature trends are occuring over a period of millions years whille we are seeing 1 degree warming in a couple of generations. Also as someone stated that there was supposed to be no sea-ice right now which scientists predicted that's perpetuating fake news as they have said around 2040s or 2050s. They in fact overestimated the years due to something to do with the saltiness of the ice. Also another factor is that due to solar cycle we should be in an era of cooling but in fact we aren't seeing that is alarming. Artic sea ice article

I was lurking and was hoping that there would be discussion without a lot of misinformation seen in the media which has dogged climate policy for many years. Also I feel that i'm very sensitive to changes that are going to be occurring due to my age so it is an important issue. Although I have hope that we will find a way to change save the world. There was one method touted which was by reversing desertification we may see carbon sequestration and if enough is done we may reduce our emissions to preindustrial levels. Although reaching a low-carbon society is very important.




Edited by ashestoashes (01/09/2018 13:06)

Top
#1469902 - 01/09/2018 13:08 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: adon]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3308
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: adon
So the quote I posted above from a researcher doesn’t count?


It counts. As media reporting. If you want to criticize media reporting based on this quote go ahead, I won't disagree that the media reporting has problems. Just don't try to criticise science on the quality of media reporting.

Originally Posted By: adon
What about this one from Micheal Mann... if not the leader, definitely a high priest

"It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly," Mann had this to say: "Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge."

The public don’t look at the models let alone the datat and certainly not the raw, in adjusted data. They rely on media reports and when the “leaders” of the scam make claims like this, it might as well be in the models



Firstly Mann is not a high priest of global warming. He is a paleo-climatologists who has investigated the history of temperature over the last couple of thousand years. His 'hockey stick' is not part of the primary argument for climate change. The primary argument is based on phystics, with model projections based on this physics. These model projections have been confirmed to be reasonably accurate over the last 40 years. Nowhere do the models take input from the time period that Mann studies. Some model studies have looked to estimate climate sensitivity based on paleo-climate data, however this has not been done to my knowledge over this time period, during which scientists think climate has changed little, but done over other periods during which climate has changed a lot (i.e. swings from ice age to inter glacial, and previous hot house episodes where polar ice caps disappeared).

Secondly Mann is almost certainly correct. Its basic phsyics - the energy source for a hurricane is converting water vapor to liquid.
Water vapor is hurricane fuel, and a warmer planet means more water vapor. A warmer planet means more hurricane fuel.

And yes it is definitely in the models that hurricane intensity will increase.

Top
#1469904 - 01/09/2018 13:12 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: RC]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3308
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: RC
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber


The overall trend in global sea ice and snow is clearly downwards. There have always been short term rises within this trend.



How do we know the current downward trend is not just a blip in a much longer trend?



It is a blip in the longer term record. For a start the trend can only continue for a century or three before we completely run out of sea ice. The point is that if you look at the last 40 or so years that we have good sea ice data there is a clear reducing trend, and that within that trend there have been plenty of previous periods were ice has looked stable or increasing over a few years. Therefore the current period of a few years gives zero reason for thinking the trend is going to change soon. But the trend absolutely must change eventually.

Top
#1469905 - 01/09/2018 13:18 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mega]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3308
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Mega
Originally Posted By: RC


How do we know the current downward trend is not just a blip in a much longer trend?

That is the thing we need tens of thousands of years of data to find a trend.

We simply do not have the raw data.


Exactly my main argument for the against camp...


How much raw data do you think we need?


Edited by Mike Hauber (01/09/2018 13:19)

Top
#1469909 - 01/09/2018 14:53 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7587
Loc: Adelaide Hills
How much motivation do people need to de-personalise the discussion?

Top
#1469911 - 01/09/2018 15:11 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: RC]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 73
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: RC
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber


The overall trend in global sea ice and snow is clearly downwards. There have always been short term rises within this trend.



How do we know the current downward trend is not just a blip in a much longer trend?

That is the thing we need tens of thousands of years of data to find a trend.

We simply do not have the raw data.


That is like your doctor saying "you running a temperature of 39C but I don't know what it was last year so lets not worry about it.

Top
#1469917 - 01/09/2018 16:18 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7230
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Mega
Originally Posted By: RC


How do we know the current downward trend is not just a blip in a much longer trend?

That is the thing we need tens of thousands of years of data to find a trend.

We simply do not have the raw data.


Exactly my main argument for the against camp...


How much raw data do you think we need?


Dunno.

Originally Posted By: Seira
How much motivation do people need to de-personalise the discussion?


Seems to have gone OK so far. People raising their points largely without the personal crap coming into it.

Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
Yes CO2 is more readily absorbed and turned into carbonic acid in dense cold sea water, but these waters have already become more acidic and are loosing their ability to act as a carbon sink, basic acids and bases chemistry. Plus the acidification of the oceans is harmful in many ways, marine invertebrates being just one example given acidic waters are harmful to shell formation. Not everything is about god damn temperature! Plants do not need us adding CO2 to the atmosphere and studies now suggest that too much CO2 actually lowers the ability of plant uptake of minerals thereby lessening the nutritional value of our food.


This part of your post really opened my eyes for sure...hard to argue with any of that.

Top
#1469921 - 01/09/2018 18:34 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Funkyseefunkydo]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 73
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: Funkyseefunkydo
Originally Posted By: Delta-T
Monckton? Please, that fraud has been shredded so many times its embarrassing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpMZ4EpCseM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozn3Ki7pBr4

I don’t know where u r going with this. But using YouTube as a “do your research” is a global problem that beliefs overtake facts.


Generally true, but in the case of Peter Hadfield aka Potholer54 you get a forensic dissection with detailed citation and next to no opinion, just the plain, well-documented facts by a professional science journalist.

Top
#1469922 - 01/09/2018 18:53 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Eigerwand]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2644
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Yay! All you’ve done is insult and abuse those who disagree with you

🙋🏼‍♂️🙋🏼‍♂️🙋🏼‍♂️🙋🏼‍♂️

Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
Originally Posted By: Petros
Reading back over recent posts, it seems the warmists have returned to the claim that the climate variability realists among-st us do not acknowledge that the world has been in a warming cycle over the past century or so.

Realists have always said the climate operates in cycles, perpetuated by inputs far more significant than man made emissions. Isn't it now an accepted scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 at 2,000ppm has been found in ice cores from centuries ago?

I think most of the angst is from warmists struggling to accept the world temperatures have peaked for this particular cycle hence lash out in confusion/frustration.

When the next world cooling cycle gathers strength, the oceans will again absorb more CO2, leaving this over populated world struggling to feed itself IMO.


This level of intellectual infirmary really does beggar belief. Do you even understand anything about CO2 absorption by the Oceans? Yes CO2 is more readily absorbed and turned into carbonic acid in dense cold sea water, but these waters have already become more acidic and are loosing their ability to act as a carbon sink, basic acids and bases chemistry. Plus the acidification of the oceans is harmful in many ways, marine invertebrates being just one example given acidic waters are harmful to shell formation. Not everything is about god damn temperature! Plants do not need us adding CO2 to the atmosphere and studies now suggest that too much CO2 actually lowers the ability of plant uptake of minerals thereby lessening the nutritional value of our food.

There is no evidence to suggest we are going to enter some cooling period.

I struggle to see how some think that because the climate has changed in the past somehow that negates the need to understand how adding a new variable into the system changes the system. The same luddites seem to have no problem when it’s the natural world that throws up change to atmospheric composition, such as during a large volcanic eruption, but then when CO2 levels are the highest they’ve been in 400,000 years due to human actions and the environment is unequivocally responding, suddenly we have all this garbage like the climate’s always changing it’s all natural variability.

I’m not adding anymore to this debate. It’s completely pointless trying to talk science with people who have no sense of probabilistic reasoning and event outcomes when applied to a non steady state system.

Top
#1469923 - 01/09/2018 19:07 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: adon]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 73
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: adon
Antarctica is back to normal-above normal this year and the Arctic Minimum ice extent has been getting larger for the last 4or 5 years. This year I particular has a lot of quite thick ice left so I would be treating that statement with a rather large pinch of salt. Greenland is gaining ice already this year according to the Danish meteorological society

As a side note the leader of this fascinating modern day religion has foretold of the arctic being ice free by 2012 then it was 2014/6/8 and now somewhoin the 2020s.


This "not" thread can only work when surprising and or dubious claims are backed up with something, some evidence. Otherwise all sorts of misunderstandings can occur.

For example I would suggest that the best you say about sea-ice right now is that is bumping along the bottom barely clinging on and another severe event like 2012 would decimate it in a matter of weeks. But not 2018 it seems - dodged the bullet one more year. A long, long way from "above normal".

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischep...ea_byyear_b.png

Claims not backed up are akin to arm-waving and largely unpersausive.

Top
#1469926 - 01/09/2018 20:19 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2644
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Seems you best take your own advice, then, and you’ve provided links to ‘global sea ice’ yet Adon didn’t talk about global sea ice.

As for Antartica, it keeps going up and up, far from the “arm waving....dodging a bullet” as claimed.

Arctic ice - as claimed by the link you provided
Quote:
Artic is 1.3 million sq km higher than 2012
which I also believe is what Adon said.

And as for Greenland?
Quote:
To date, heavy winter snowfall along the eastern side of the island and a near-average melt season means that the ice sheet has gained a large amount of mass.

Top
Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >


Who's Online
0 registered (), 328 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
aurbina1, Justin Case
Forum Stats
29681 Members
32 Forums
23981 Topics
1501187 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image