Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#1469933 - 01/09/2018 22:08 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
"You’ve provided links to ‘global sea ice’ yet Adon didn’t talk about global sea ice."


The link, if you had gone there, shows Arctic, Antarctic and global - each a standard deviation below the long term average.


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


"up and up"? It's down at least one SD from the long term record. https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent


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.


As for Greenland you've made the common mistake of confusing Surface Mass Balance which gains a "large amount of mass" each year with Total Mass Balance which loses thoses "large amount of mass" each year... and some.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/files/2017/08/GrnLndMassTrnd.png

As I said to adon if you're not backing it up its arm-waving.

Top
#1469934 - 01/09/2018 22:38 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2823
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
So, what you’re saying was Adon was correct & you’re just being pedantic? Ok. Cool. Thanks for clearing that up *waves arms furiously*

Top
#1469935 - 01/09/2018 22:47 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: Kino
So, what you’re saying was Adon was correct & you’re just being pedantic? Ok. Cool. Thanks for clearing that up *waves arms furiously*


Your'e not here for an exchange of ideas I see.

Top
#1469936 - 01/09/2018 22:55 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
ashestoashes Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 22/10/2017
Posts: 489
Loc: Voyager Point (South West Sydn...
I straight stated earlier debunking Adon's claim that scientists claimed that we would be ice free right now in the Arctic and it has firmly been 2040s for a number of years.
Also there are a number of reasons for an extension in sea ice is the large outlier of Antartica which has seen a higher tendency to for a positive SAM which means cooler temperatures close to Antarctic, once you see the atmosphere improve the reduction of cfc this trend will most definitely reverse.

Top
#1469937 - 01/09/2018 23:02 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2823
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Delta-T
Originally Posted By: Kino
So, what you’re saying was Adon was correct & you’re just being pedantic? Ok. Cool. Thanks for clearing that up *waves arms furiously*


Your'e not here for an exchange of ideas I see.


Not when you’re rubbishing someone who shares them...

Top
#1469938 - 01/09/2018 23:04 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: ashestoashes]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2823
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: ashestoashes
I straight stated earlier debunking Adon's claim that scientists claimed that we would be ice free right now in the Arctic and it has firmly been 2040s for a number of years.
Also there are a number of reasons for an extension in sea ice is the large outlier of Antartica which has seen a higher tendency to for a positive SAM which means cooler temperatures close to Antarctic, once you see the atmosphere improve the reduction of cfc this trend will most definitely reverse.


Not Adons claim at all, been in the media more times than the forecast of El Niños


Edited by Kino (01/09/2018 23:04)

Top
#1469943 - 02/09/2018 08:08 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3430
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Kino


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



Doesn't look up and up to me. The last two years it has been quite low, but too early to say whether it is a trend, or just a couple of unusual low years before it returns to average again.


Top
#1469944 - 02/09/2018 08:16 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3430
Loc: Buderim
Arctic Sea ice:



There was a much faster period of ice loss in the 00s. This is why many observers, including a couple scientists speculated that the Arctic may be ice free by about now.

The period of rapid loss was short lived, and it looks like we are back to the slower steady loss of ice from the 80s and 90s.

Always be careful reading too much into a few years of data.

Top
#1469945 - 02/09/2018 08:46 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: Kino


Not when you’re rubbishing someone who shares them...


That is not what happened, I made a polite suggestion.

Top
#1469971 - 02/09/2018 20:34 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1988
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
I think people just need to calm down a little if this discussion is to continue.

Mike graciously took a chance opening this thread, originally to open a channel for the discussion of that which was contaminating the Climate Drivers Discussion at the time.

It is obviously an emotive subject for some people, and that is something which needs to be held in check if there is to be any sort of valid discussion at all. Calling those who disagree with your stated position or those who provide a counter argument disparaging names or insinuating that they are uneducated due to an opposition of their views is not only poor form but also shows that the individual is not open to actual discussion of the subject.

That said, just because there is a consensus view held by many on a certain subject is not overt proof that such a view is Empirical evidence, IE Falsifiable Evidence. Just one hundred short years ago Wegener was ridiculed by the mainstream scientific fraternity for his (at the time) opinion of continental drift.... Look where that ended up.

So back to the subject at hand, Climate Models.

I would ask those who accept the current "consensus view" that the addition of Anthropologically produced C02 will raise the Earths temperature,
1. By how much ?
2. What Peer reviewed Empirical Evidence currently exist's, that any Anthropologically produced CO2 has had any effect on the Earths Climate ?
3. How do you differentiate between Natural warming after the last Ice age (Maunder Minimum) from that of Anthropologically produced Warming?

A lot has been produced by the IPCC over the last decade on this subject with various reports, but it must also be remembered that the IPCC's mandate does not include any other cause or reason for any such Changes other than that caused by Humans.... WHY ?

Quote:
1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC currently is organized into three Working Groups: Working Group I (WGI) addresses observed and projected changes in climate; Working Group II (WGII) addresses vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation related to climate change; and Working Group III (WGIII) addresses options for mitigation of climate change.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22

So why just "Human induced" ?

Is there no other possible cause ?

Edited to provide quote.






Edited by marakai (02/09/2018 20:36)

Top
#1469974 - 02/09/2018 20:47 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7634
Loc: Adelaide Hills
I do not think there are any sides to this discussion...nor do I think trying to persuade anyone of anything other than evidence-based factual content is constructive. If people want to discuss science (and the models that are meant to be based on it), people need to provide references, and back-up their posts with material than can be checked. The whole camp thing needs to be discarded.

That is my suggestion.

If it is of any use, there was a paper on the *mentioning* of this stuff in the literature.


Edited by Seira (02/09/2018 20:54)

Top
#1469975 - 02/09/2018 21:09 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Seina]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1988
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Seira
I do not think there are any sides to this discussion...nor do I think trying to persuade anyone of anything other than evidence-based factual content is constructive. If people want to discuss science (and the models that are meant to be based on it), people need to provide references, and back-up their posts with material than can be checked. The whole camp thing needs to be discarded.

That is my suggestion.


Of course there are sides/camps Seira , there are those who think that Humans are directly responsible for the recent meager rise in recorded temperatures and those who think that there might just be other reasons, or that maybe it's just natural that after an Ice Age it is quite normal for the Planet to warm up again.

It is the apparent evidence that is the subject of discussion, at the moment there is little more than a century of records that have determined the apparent ideal temperature range for the planet and even that is subject to much disagreement.

EG: Do we just take it on face value or do we Homogenize,Calibrate, Splice, Adjust and re do it all again and again in order to "normalize" a chaotic system so as to make sense of it all and then base some Modelling on it.

Or do we rely upon tried, tested and trusted scientific method's of falsifiable results to inform us of what we actually do or don't know? EG: Null Hypothesis.

Top
#1469978 - 02/09/2018 21:58 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
1. By how much ?

CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[15] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
Rahmstorf, Stefan (2008)


IPCC 2007.


The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) as calculated from various sources:



Resulting in this spread of temperature increase:



The image is from wikipedia

Answer ~ 3C for doubling CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm.

Top
#1469982 - 02/09/2018 23:17 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2823
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus

Top
#1469983 - 02/09/2018 23:59 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1988
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Delta-T
1. By how much ?

CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[15] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
Rahmstorf, Stefan (2008)


IPCC 2007.


The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) as calculated from various sources:



Resulting in this spread of temperature increase:



The image is from wikipedia

Answer ~ 3C for doubling CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm.



Thanks for the reply Delta-T

So my first follow up there is how much of that expected 3C could or would be attributed to Anthropologically produced CO2?

While the lab produced results of additional CO2 are quite well reproducible and widely recognized, there is a large amount of uncertainty as to what happens in the real world when it comes to supposed feedback's in a chaotic system.

I'm not in any way disputing that such feedback's exist at at all, just that up till now that when it comes to modelling the climate accurately that there are all manner of said feedback's that are outside our field of knowledge and are ergo unable to be accurately inputted into such models.

Clouds, water vapour, greening of the planet, Oceanic plankton just to name a few, along with the known unknown's such as the long and short term effects of sporadic solar activity and the weakening of the Earths magnetic field which might or might not all have a separate or combined effect on both short and long term climate.

Nearly all of such feedback's are outside of mankind's control let alone at this point in time unable to be accurately modeled with our current base of knowledge.

Just as an example, we do know for a fact (for what that fact is currently worth) that CO2 levels lag ice loss and temperature increase by quite a number of years, anywhere between 200-1000 years. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

I could provide a whole lot of other sources for this, but in this instance will go with one that I normally wouldn't touch with a ten foot barge pole in the interest of providing an acceptable reference source for this claim.

So back to the 3C increase for a doubling of CO2.

What part of that increase is due to Anthropological production of CO2 ? I doubt that anyone can tell us the answer to that question. I've been following this discussion for the best part of 20 years and I am yet still to see A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER that unquestionably links the production of Human Produced CO2 with any effect on the climate of the Earth at all.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions based upon clear lab results, but apparently absolutely zero results based upon real life falsifiable hypothesis when it comes to such claims.
And it would seem so far that when tested all such claims have failed their tests.

The thirty year pause in global temperature increase despite the highest ever production of Anthropological CO2 really should of caused a total rethink on the entire subject. What happened though was a rethink of Science itself and a morph into some sort of post academic existence of itself, where somehow models became reality and replaced the rigorous standards required, before any Government Policy was instituted.


And that is the Camp that I am in.

Show me the ACTUAL PROOF, the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. BEFORE you start mandating higher energy cost's for everybody that does not own their own house or can't afford to install Solar, before you start to subsidize renewable energy projects that cost tax payers, Before you start to shut down Coal Fired Power generators and drive the cost of electricity up, harming not only individuals but also industry and jobs overall as well.

Just for arguments sake Delta-T, lets say that a doubling of CO2 does indeed cause 3C of warming in the real world.

How much of that is due to Humankind ?

How much of that rise is due to Australia's Production of CO2 ?

Do you think any effect that Australia has on the Global Climate one way or another justify's the imposition on our country of deliberately high power cost's that damage our national GDP and also impose unnecessary cost to individuals as a result?

I'm asking this based purely on the available evidence so far, not some supposed future cost apparent far off in the distance supplied by models.

IE: Is the Govt Justified in imposing exrta cost onto individuals for electricity supply NOW, based upon an unproven model of what the future might look like 50 years from now ?

Top
#1469994 - 03/09/2018 07:42 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3430
Loc: Buderim
Doubling Co2 causes 1 degrees of warming from direct changes of warming. Feedbacks push increase that, and yes feedbacks are uncertain. IPCC states that the result of doubling CO2 is somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. Or feedbacks may add between 0.5 and 3.5 degrees of additional warming.

So perhaps we will be lucky and get feedbacks in the low end of the range. Or perhaps we will be unlucky and get something at the upper end.

There are three important feedbacks.

Changes in albedo. A warmer world has less ice and absorbs more solar radiation. Clearly a positive feedback. An interesting aspect is that the less ice on the planet, the weaker this feedback becomes. So if at some stage we run out of Arctic ice this feedback will slow down.

Water Vapour. Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. Generally it is expected that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will go up at the same rate as that its capacity to hold water goes up, and this results in a substantial positive feedback. Perhaps if the atmosphere gets substantially drier (relative humidity) then this won't be as substantial a +ve feedback. I think I'd rather a bit more warming than a bit more drying.

Cloud feedbacks. Highly uncertain. The latest modelling work keeps suggesting that cloud feedbacks are actually higher than generally accepted. The problem with this is that if the models are revised upwards to take into account the latest results in cloud modelling than projections of warming over the last few decades becomes to fast. Currently models over estimate the recent warming rate by maybe 10%.

And a very imporant consideration for cliamte sensitivity is that there is a large amount of lag. Three degrees will take thousands of years, and for timespans relevant to human life times we are probably looking at more like 2 degrees of warming per doubling.

Top
#1469995 - 03/09/2018 07:43 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Sillybanter Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 17/03/2017
Posts: 44
Loc: Toowoomba
Good post marakai.

I think the climate change argument is dumb.

Most of us would agree that the climate is in constant change and some of that change has to be attributed to human influence.
Most of us would agree that measures to limit impacts by humans on the environment are very important moving forward.
However its after this basic agreement that everything goes pear shaped for us.
And here are some of my reasons.
*If we are to make changes to our lives and costs in isolation while still being a consumer driven society the nett benefits to the environment are zero.
* if we shut down our own manufacturing because of regulation and cost, this manufacturing just moves to countries where it cheaper and easier.
* we can encourage change in China but when it becomes to difficult there factories will move to the next developing country.
* we shut down our timber industry in Australia while we import timber from developing countries.
All these things infuriate people like myself and why we frustrated by the Climate changers. Not because we totally disagree. Its the way that it manifests into policies and cost that make very little difference to the big picture.

Top
#1469999 - 03/09/2018 09:15 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Eigerwand]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7539
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Wow, lots of debate here.

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.



Ooops, yep I'll admit to a tad of intellectual infirmary and no sense of probabilistic reasoning about my 2,000 ppm claim.

I'd actually dredged up the CO2 dosage level applied to glass houses for tomato production, admit I was incorrect.

Agree with the historical cyclic CO2 values found in ice cores going back a few 100 of thousands of years back as posted by another.

....and will test my "firmary" and look into the "acidification of oceans claim", and how this acidification could possibly prevent the normal oceanic CO2 absorbtion when the oceans begin to cool again in the next cooling cycle.

Top
#1470002 - 03/09/2018 09:31 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7539
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Great posts Maraki (and I fully agree) and also MikeH's reply.

Lets get back to the CO2/Temperature relationship lag addressed in both posts.

Maraki stated that CO2 rises some 200-1,000 years after global temperature rise (my understanding too).

Mike counters with an argument, that if I've interpreted correctly, effectively states that if CO2 levels are doubled, the earths temperature will rise by 2 deg C "thousands of years" later.

Both address "lag" .....but have the cart and the horse swapped. Is this the fundamental difference between alarmists and realists?

Top
#1470003 - 03/09/2018 10:31 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: marakai
[quote=Delta-T]1. By how much ?

While the lab produced results of additional CO2 are quite well reproducible and widely recognized, there is a large amount of uncertainty as to what happens in the real world when it comes to supposed feedback's in a chaotic system.

I'm not in any way disputing that such feedback's exist at at all,



You seem to be agreeing there are some feed backs. Are you also agreeing with the underlying theoretical physics? Ie that CO2 amongst other is a "radiatively active gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

I want to be clear and not talking at crosspurposes.

If you do agree then the answer to your first follow up: how much of that expected 3C could or would be attributed to Anthropologically produced CO2 is...

Theoretically all of it.

The extra CO2 injected into system should bump it in that direction by about that much. Is it the only thing that can 'bump' the climate? No of course not and there are hundreds of unanswered questions. But the science says that to the best of our undertanding and depite the uncertainties of whatever else may bump things, that is our best guess.

Inject xxx GT of CO2 = about +3 degrees.

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


Who's Online
18 registered (ThunderBob, Mcbobbings, jim, ifishcq, GringosRain, mysteriousbrad, nimbuss1, BrightSide, Antarctic Whaler, Wezza, WeatherNut96, Timbuck, Kino, MattS, raincheck, 3 invisible), 128 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Beachy, Keith, Khaliq Khabir
Forum Stats
29700 Members
32 Forums
24024 Topics
1505719 Posts

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