Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#1467418 - 16/07/2018 08:39 Not the climate change thread
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
A lot of stuff keeps getting said in the drivers thread which is clearly not climate driver related (if by climate drivers we mean stuff like ENSO IOD etc). Evidently it is not climate change related either as it is permitted. To keep the climate driver thread on topic I am replying here.

Originally Posted By: marakai


If a Models input is only using consensus based information, ergo, only consensus based information is going to come out the other end of any simulation run on said model.


So the models are all saying the same thing, and thats bad?

Originally Posted By: marakai


Basing published findings upon Models that can't be reproduced.


But if the models cannot be reproduced, how can they be saying the same thing?

Originally Posted By: marakai


Can't be in anyway Falsified, and time and again are found to be predicatively WRONG is not SCIENCE.


So being found wrong is somehow different to being falsified??

Originally Posted By: marakai

Time and again we see all sort's of headlines with a claim of this or that regarding Weather or Catastrophic Climate events predicted by said reputable sources based upon "Models" which never eventuate, and which are never questioned either at the time of publishing nor afterwards after they haven't happened.


No we don't. Can you post any examples?


Originally Posted By: marakai

Whatever happened to Robert K Merton's concepts ?


I don't know. You tell me what happened to the concepts of a sociologist and how they are relevant to climate science.


Originally Posted By: marakai

Models are well and good, but....

They certainly are, but they are not perfect, and some people like to make a deal of the lack of perfection and/or post a lot of contradictory nonsense to try and discredit them.

Top
#1469768 - 30/08/2018 22:55 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2025
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Wow interesting, I only just came across this by accident Mike and must say thanks for providing a forum that might deal with some of these issues.

"So the models are all saying the same thing, and thats bad?"

It's not so much that they are all saying the same thing Mike, more so that they are all Wrong.
A model is only as good as it's input, and if you are ignoring that which is too difficult to "Model" then you are just creating a tool that agree's with your desired output. EG: Ignore Clouds, Oceanic Plankton, Seasonal water vapour fluctuations etc and all you get back is a basic computation rather than an accurate Model.

I think I'll let a physicist answer this one Properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4

"But if the models cannot be reproduced, how can they be saying the same thing?"

Quite easily Mike, Nearly all of them are using the same consensus input type data, ergo they all end up at the same conclusion or output. None of them use a full range of realistic input such as clouds etc as mentioned above. Each model is calibrated to a certain range of inputs and a button is pushed to ascertain an outcome. I might ask, if a Model is reliable in it's outcome what chance is there for a chaotic system such as that of the Earth to be accurately predicted ?

It would of been nice to be Quoted in full but here go's any way.

"Can't be in anyway Falsified, and time and again are found to be predicatively WRONG is not SCIENCE."

(Q"So being found wrong is somehow different to being falsified??")

Being found wrong time after time after time, and yet persevering with the same mantra in the face of incontrovertible evidence that you are wrong time after time and being given a free pass in the MSM for such Pseudo Science with gay abandon is detrimental not only to real Science but in time will undermine the field of science itself. You yourself must know that you can't use the failure of a Model to falsify a claim right ? The Model itself is not science to start with.
You might claim that a Model shows this or that based upon it's input, but if it fails it is just a model after all right ?


"Time and again we see all sort's of headlines with a claim of this or that regarding Weather or Catastrophic Climate events predicted by said reputable sources based upon "Models" which never eventuate, and which are never questioned either at the time of publishing nor afterwards after they haven't happened."

Q"No we don't. Can you post any examples?"

Just go look at the latest Q&A show from this week M8, Larissa Waters Former Green senator announcing to the world that HALF the Great Barrier Reef was dead now due to coral bleaching. Go listen to the last couple of days ABC News announcing that a New Bleaching event may be imminent based upon a convention of "Climate Scientist's" held over the last week or so.

Another half arsed quote: "Models are well and good, but...."

"They certainly are, but they are not perfect, and some people like to make a deal of the lack of perfection and/or post a lot of contradictory nonsense to try and discredit them."

Models are not SCIENCE, they are just models, and that is all they are.
They are not empirical, they are not evidence, they are not results.

And when it comes to estimating what might happen in decades to century's when it comes to the weather or climate they are guesstimates at their best.

Even the most skilled forecasters are hard up predicting the track of a tropical cyclone three days out with all the state of the art tools at their disposal, narrow that down to 24 hours out and they are still making best estimate guesses most of the time.

Think about that for a minute, they are using real time info and the very same computational models that they use for forecasting months, years and decades out to determine an actual real time situation, and yet are still guessing against nature.

The difference is that they are using actual real time observations to predict the next twelve to twenty four hours, as opposed to unknown and chaotic influences over years and decades yet still expect us to believe that the years and decades are predictable while they regularly mis predict the next 24 hrs of a weather system ?

A lot of Stuff keeps getting said, not much of it is accurate or actually happens despite all of the predictions. Endless warming and El Nino's, etc !

Top
#1469769 - 30/08/2018 23:12 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2025
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
While we're here Mike, I'd like to know your opinion on this sort of stuff

Part 1: https://youtu.be/hilN8eNp930
Part 2: https://youtu.be/wovUYvAX59s
Part 3: https://youtu.be/lmaeF9zjrBI
Part 4: https://youtu.be/p4d7naDAsKU

Especially the interaction of electro magnetic effects on cloud/storm formation and the apparent effects of high latitude plasma stream interaction with the poles and the affect on the jet streams at these locations. It would seem that such interactions have an effect on the Ozone layer and a subsequent corresponding high altitude effect on the polar vortex.
Just as much an unkonwn quantity on the Climate as anything else we apparently "KNOW" so far ?

Top
#1469771 - 30/08/2018 23:34 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Great post!

Originally Posted By: marakai
Wow interesting, I only just came across this by accident Mike and must say thanks for providing a forum that might deal with some of these issues.

"So the models are all saying the same thing, and thats bad?"

It's not so much that they are all saying the same thing Mike, more so that they are all Wrong.
A model is only as good as it's input, and if you are ignoring that which is too difficult to "Model" then you are just creating a tool that agree's with your desired output. EG: Ignore Clouds, Oceanic Plankton, Seasonal water vapour fluctuations etc and all you get back is a basic computation rather than an accurate Model.

I think I'll let a physicist answer this one Properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4

"But if the models cannot be reproduced, how can they be saying the same thing?"

Quite easily Mike, Nearly all of them are using the same consensus input type data, ergo they all end up at the same conclusion or output. None of them use a full range of realistic input such as clouds etc as mentioned above. Each model is calibrated to a certain range of inputs and a button is pushed to ascertain an outcome. I might ask, if a Model is reliable in it's outcome what chance is there for a chaotic system such as that of the Earth to be accurately predicted ?

It would of been nice to be Quoted in full but here go's any way.

"Can't be in anyway Falsified, and time and again are found to be predicatively WRONG is not SCIENCE."

(Q"So being found wrong is somehow different to being falsified??")

Being found wrong time after time after time, and yet persevering with the same mantra in the face of incontrovertible evidence that you are wrong time after time and being given a free pass in the MSM for such Pseudo Science with gay abandon is detrimental not only to real Science but in time will undermine the field of science itself. You yourself must know that you can't use the failure of a Model to falsify a claim right ? The Model itself is not science to start with.
You might claim that a Model shows this or that based upon it's input, but if it fails it is just a model after all right ?


"Time and again we see all sort's of headlines with a claim of this or that regarding Weather or Catastrophic Climate events predicted by said reputable sources based upon "Models" which never eventuate, and which are never questioned either at the time of publishing nor afterwards after they haven't happened."

Q"No we don't. Can you post any examples?"

Just go look at the latest Q&A show from this week M8, Larissa Waters Former Green senator announcing to the world that HALF the Great Barrier Reef was dead now due to coral bleaching. Go listen to the last couple of days ABC News announcing that a New Bleaching event may be imminent based upon a convention of "Climate Scientist's" held over the last week or so.

Another half arsed quote: "Models are well and good, but...."

"They certainly are, but they are not perfect, and some people like to make a deal of the lack of perfection and/or post a lot of contradictory nonsense to try and discredit them."

Models are not SCIENCE, they are just models, and that is all they are.
They are not empirical, they are not evidence, they are not results.

And when it comes to estimating what might happen in decades to century's when it comes to the weather or climate they are guesstimates at their best.

Even the most skilled forecasters are hard up predicting the track of a tropical cyclone three days out with all the state of the art tools at their disposal, narrow that down to 24 hours out and they are still making best estimate guesses most of the time.

Think about that for a minute, they are using real time info and the very same computational models that they use for forecasting months, years and decades out to determine an actual real time situation, and yet are still guessing against nature.

The difference is that they are using actual real time observations to predict the next twelve to twenty four hours, as opposed to unknown and chaotic influences over years and decades yet still expect us to believe that the years and decades are predictable while they regularly mis predict the next 24 hrs of a weather system ?

A lot of Stuff keeps getting said, not much of it is accurate or actually happens despite all of the predictions. Endless warming and El Nino's, etc !



Top
#1469786 - 31/08/2018 09:43 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
Well look who opened this can of worms...... I will be very interested to see if the moderators treat Mike the same way they have treated others?

As for the models used for preaching the gospel of global warming , they cannot possibly accurately predict how the climate will change let alone the anthropological component of any change when so many assumptions are made when entering data. Nobody knows what assumptions have been made and how much weight has been placed on these assumptions. I did see a video a long time ago highlighting an error in the formula used by climate models in dealing with positive feedback. They had used a formula from electrical engineering dealing with feedback into microphones(from memory). An error was made in the formula which returned a feedback several times the rate using the correct version. Of course this was highlighted and the modellers refused to amend the error(rather conveniently for them). I will try to find it again.

Top
#1469788 - 31/08/2018 10:02 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
Short version https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13ixRJ3lmFY

Long version skip to 24min to miss the fluff. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg&t=1476s

Top
#1469789 - 31/08/2018 10:04 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
I didn't open the can of worms. I was trying to move disccusions that had been opened by others in the climate driver thread out of the climate driver thread.

Top
#1469792 - 31/08/2018 10:56 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: adon]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: adon
Well look who opened this can of worms...... I will be very interested to see if the moderators treat Mike the same way they have treated others?

As for the models used for preaching the gospel of global warming , they cannot possibly accurately predict how the climate will change let alone the anthropological component of any change when so many assumptions are made when entering data. Nobody knows what assumptions have been made and how much weight has been placed on these assumptions. I did see a video a long time ago highlighting an error in the formula used by climate models in dealing with positive feedback. They had used a formula from electrical engineering dealing with feedback into microphones(from memory). An error was made in the formula which returned a feedback several times the rate using the correct version. Of course this was highlighted and the modellers refused to amend the error(rather conveniently for them). I will try to find it again.


Nailed! If the assumptions aren't transparent then you can bet the result is manipulated and corrupt.

Top
#1469793 - 31/08/2018 11:21 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7371
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
So are we arguing that climate change isn't real and that the results derived from data over the past however many years has been manipulated?

Just trying to make sense of all this. And it only has to be a can of worms if you let it be.

Top
#1469795 - 31/08/2018 11:27 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mega]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Mega
So are we arguing that climate change isn't real
no

Originally Posted By: Mega
and that the results derived from data over the past however many years has been manipulated?
Yes

Top
#1469798 - 31/08/2018 11:42 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7371
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
Hmmm ok. I guess the question is how would we ever know? I am still largely on the fence with this since I think vaid arguments could be presented from both sides. One of the ones I have (and I don't even know if it's relevant lol) is that taking data from the last 100 - 200 years is only a tiny piece of the earths' history so how would we know that it hasn't happened before, say thousands of years ago? The other one is how people keep relating extreme weather events to climate change when most have happened before and will happen again. It's getting a little overblown when people keep doing this.

Anyway, back to lurking, lol.

Top
#1469800 - 31/08/2018 11:52 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mega]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Mega
Hmmm ok. I guess the question is how would we ever know? I am still largely on the fence with this since I think vaid arguments could be presented from both sides.


Agree re: change - it has changed over the eons the planet has been around, which is clear from archaeological digs etc. What were the drivers then? Why are those drivers so insignificant now?

Re: modelling well, we can know if they released their assumptions.

Top
#1469801 - 31/08/2018 11:55 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 343
All y’all too worried about models and he say she say. Climate change and ecosystems response to such change set against what can be accurately surmised as the climates natural variability is to a better than not degree of certainty happening at too fast arate.

Honestly I’m so sick of reading people’s crap about this stuff. Go ask the Inuit if they think the climates following some normal variable trend. There’s so much actual ecological response but tards want to sit back and ask for valid computer models. Disgusting.

Top
#1469804 - 31/08/2018 12:34 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Eigerwand]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2025
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
All y’all too worried about models and he say she say. Climate change and ecosystems response to such change set against what can be accurately surmised as the climates natural variability is to a better than not degree of certainty happening at too fast arate.

Honestly I’m so sick of reading people’s crap about this stuff. Go ask the Inuit if they think the climates following some normal variable trend. There’s so much actual ecological response but tards want to sit back and ask for valid computer models. Disgusting.


Not entirely accurate there Eigerwald

Quote:
Ice Core Reveals How Quickly Climate Can Change

Weather patterns can permanently shift in as little as a year, according to the records preserved in an ice core from Greenland
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-reveals-how-quickly-climate-can-change/

Also, it's not so much that the models posed are constantly wrong but that public policy is based on said models.

Inaccurate and alarming modeling is used to justify an increase in power prices via the subsidizing of renewable's which in turn still need gas or coal fired backup to maintain grid stability and all while there is still not any empirical evidence whatsoever that the use of Cheap Coal fired electricity generation has any effect on "weather" at all.

Your right, it is Tarded and Disgusting!

Top
#1469806 - 31/08/2018 12:39 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 48
Loc: Katoomba
The idea that scientists and meteorologists are manipulating data for their own nefarious ends is completely absurd. Why don't you consider who REALLY stands to benefit from manipulating (ignoring, obfuscating etc) data? Could it be that companies (and associated beneficiaries) who profit obscenely from fossil fuels might be less trustworthy than scientists? Bah, you're probably right. It's all a scam to get those lucrative grants! flipping hell guys.

Top
#1469807 - 31/08/2018 12:50 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 48
Loc: Katoomba
"Inaccurate and alarming modeling is used to justify an increase in power prices via the subsidizing of renewable's.."
Not exactly. 41% of the increase in electricity prices over the last 10 years has been in network costs, extra retail charges account for 24%, green energy @16%. That's according to Rod Sims of the ACCC.

Top
#1469809 - 31/08/2018 13:03 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
If the models could be manipulated to show what the evil conspiracy cabal want, then why doesn't someone from outside the conspiracy manipulate a climate model to show 'the truth'. Some models may be super expensive and require big fancy computers to run on, and so perhaps can only be operated by members of the evil conspiracy (although even there I would think fossil fuel money would be enough to get such a model running if there was any reasonable chance it would show what they want it to). Others are open source and can run on anyone's home pc.

The only data that I have ever heard the model critics complain about being manipulated is the temperature data. But that is an output of the model, never an input. So the outputs match what we observe well enough that the critics complain that the observations have been fudged to match the models.

Inputs into models are stuff like radiation levels, cloud parameters, ocean physics, geography etc etc, and I have never seen any direct evidence that such data is being fudged. I have seen the occasional accusations that stuff like cloud parameters (one of the biggest real difficulties in models) can be chosen to produce any result the modellers want, but then the question is why hasn't someone chosen a cloud parameter that produces a model outcome outside the consensus?

Top
#1469811 - 31/08/2018 14:00 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Eigerwand]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7557
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
...... Go ask the Inuit if they think the climates following some normal variable trend. There’s so much actual ecological response but tards want to sit back and ask for valid computer models. Disgusting.


What would they say Eiger?

Top
#1469812 - 31/08/2018 14:09 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: sou]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7557
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: sou
"Inaccurate and alarming modeling is used to justify an increase in power prices via the subsidizing of renewable's.."
Not exactly. 41% of the increase in electricity prices over the last 10 years has been in network costs, extra retail charges account for 24%, green energy @16%. That's according to Rod Sims of the ACCC.


Havent seen any Rod Sims articles myself Sou.

.....But you can educate yourself by visiting AEMO website and downloading the NEM electricity wholesale prices over the past 4 years before ideologically inspired closure of coal fired power stations.

Then you can wonder to yourself why this huge escalation isnt mentioned by Sim's (assuming you have quoted him correctly).

Top
#1469822 - 31/08/2018 15:54 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 728
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Yeah! F [censored] scientists! What would they know!


Edited by Funkyseefunkydo (31/08/2018 15:54)

Top
#1469823 - 31/08/2018 15:58 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
petethemoskeet Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/08/2003
Posts: 1339
Loc: toowoomba
Probably very little especially the ones that get govt grants.

Top
#1469824 - 31/08/2018 16:09 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: petethemoskeet]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 728
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Originally Posted By: petethemoskeet
Probably very little especially the ones that get govt grants.

Well I hope you will never need medical science to save your life. Praying will have to do.

Top
#1469828 - 31/08/2018 17:22 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Funkyseefunkydo]
Nature's Fury Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 29/11/2009
Posts: 2281
Loc: Brisbane Western Suburbs
People can argue all they want but it isn't that complicated.

Even on a basic level without going into all the data and science, it's pretty logical. In the last 250 years of civilisation we've been pumping huge and ever-increasing amounts of C02 and methane into the atmosphere through all our activities. So naturally greenhouse gas levels have been measured to increase. We all know how greenhouse gases work and their effects. It's simple cause and effect. And we've seen that humans can have significant detrimental effects on our atmosphere - we nearly destroyed our ozone layer from CFCs and that was in a much shorter period of time. It's incredible that a scientific theory which is so strongly supported by evidence and has practically a unanimous consensus in the scientific community is so debated. In that case we should probably challenge every other scientific theory - atoms aren't real, the earth is flat, smoking is good for us, CFCs don't destroy the ozone layer.

No doubt there are natural climate cycles and there will continue to be until the end of the solar system. These will affect climate in various and at times significant ways, but there is a clear quantifiable culprit in this case and it isn't some speculated natural cycle.

Unfortunately this topic has been obscured by a whole range of factors: 'manufactured debate' from lobby groups with vested interests, the public's lack of interest or awareness of basic scientific principles, misinformation and emotional commentary on social media, a preference by many people to bury their heads in the sand because of the scale and destructive potential of the problem, and an increasing social and intellectual movement that challenges the very notion that there is such a thing as 'knowledge' and 'fact' only agendas. So many of the counter-arguments have been answered (including some on this very thread already), but people just continue to spin to suit their perspective and then accuse climate scientists of doing the same thing.

While the world argues and does nothing year after year we're 1 degree away from reaching the first of the climate feedback processes that will basically condemn us to run-away warming anywhere up to 6 degrees. We won't actually start doing anything until the effects are so devastating that we simply can't ignore it anymore and by then it's too late. A world at the target of 2 degrees warmer would be very uncomfortable and challenging to civilisation, but if you've read anything about 3-6 it starts to become progressively more apocalyptic and social breakdown would be unavoidable.

Just my 10 cents. I'm not even going to bother with this thread because it's pointless. I'm sure some posters will give a point-by-point rebuttal of each sentence of my post with their own explanations, interpretations and pseudo-science. And then someone else will give a rebuttal of their ideas and round and round we go. You won't convince those who advocate anthropogenic climate change that it's 'all a lie'. And you certainly won't convince skeptics that it's true and we need to take action. So we'll spend the next decades continuing to argue and do nothing until it's too late. However when that time comes I doubt the skeptics will still be so vocal and proud of themselves for obfuscating the issue.

Top
#1469830 - 31/08/2018 17:28 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
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

Top
#1469831 - 31/08/2018 17:32 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Nature's Fury]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7371
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
Originally Posted By: Nature's Fury
People can argue all they want but it isn't that complicated.

Even on a basic level without going into all the data and science, it's pretty logical. In the last 250 years of civilisation we've been pumping huge and ever-increasing amounts of C02 and methane into the atmosphere through all our activities. So naturally greenhouse gas levels have been measured to increase. We all know how greenhouse gases work and their effects. It's simple cause and effect. And we've seen that humans can have significant detrimental effects on our atmosphere - we nearly destroyed our ozone layer from CFCs and that was in a much shorter period of time. It's incredible that a scientific theory which is so strongly supported by evidence and has practically a unanimous consensus in the scientific community is so debated. In that case we should probably challenge every other scientific theory - atoms aren't real, the earth is flat, smoking is good for us, CFCs don't destroy the ozone layer.

No doubt there are natural climate cycles and there will continue to be until the end of the solar system. These will affect climate in various and at times significant ways, but there is a clear quantifiable culprit in this case and it isn't some speculated natural cycle.

Unfortunately this topic has been obscured by a whole range of factors: 'manufactured debate' from lobby groups with vested interests, the public's lack of interest or awareness of basic scientific principles, misinformation and emotional commentary on social media, a preference by many people to bury their heads in the sand because of the scale and destructive potential of the problem, and an increasing social and intellectual movement that challenges the very notion that there is such a thing as 'knowledge' and 'fact' only agendas. So many of the counter-arguments have been answered (including some on this very thread already), but people just continue to spin to suit their perspective and then accuse climate scientists of doing the same thing.

While the world argues and does nothing year after year we're 1 degree away from reaching the first of the climate feedback processes that will basically condemn us to run-away warming anywhere up to 6 degrees. We won't actually start doing anything until the effects are so devastating that we simply can't ignore it anymore and by then it's too late. A world at the target of 2 degrees warmer would be very uncomfortable and challenging to civilisation, but if you've read anything about 3-6 it starts to become progressively more apocalyptic and social breakdown would be unavoidable.

Just my 10 cents. I'm not even going to bother with this thread because it's pointless. I'm sure some posters will give a point-by-point rebuttal of each sentence of my post with their own explanations, interpretations and pseudo-science. And then someone else will give a rebuttal of their ideas and round and round we go. You won't convince those who advocate anthropogenic climate change that it's 'all a lie'. And you certainly won't convince skeptics that it's true and we need to take action. So we'll spend the next decades continuing to argue and do nothing until it's too late. However when that time comes I doubt the skeptics will still be so vocal and proud of themselves for obfuscating the issue.


Good post NF. You clarified things very well for me at least.

Top
#1469832 - 31/08/2018 18:00 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 728
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
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.

Top
#1469835 - 31/08/2018 18:25 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: sou]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
Originally Posted By: sou
"Inaccurate and alarming modeling is used to justify an increase in power prices via the subsidizing of renewable's.."
Not exactly. 41% of the increase in electricity prices over the last 10 years has been in network costs, extra retail charges account for 24%, green energy @16%. That's according to Rod Sims of the ACCC.


And a whopping chunk of the infrastructure costs arise from the erratic nature of Renewable energy generation. It’s widely known within the electricity industry how difficult the surges and rapid loss of power are to deal with.

Top
#1469839 - 31/08/2018 18:48 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Flowin Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 15/10/2017
Posts: 611
Loc: Pinjarra Hills, Qld
Shame this "not the climate changes thread" has so much mention of mention of debate on the antonym:(

Re models which is where I think Mike started with this thread, they are an aspect of science, and without them new scientific discoveries would be far less. I have scoped, developed, and used models (not climate simulation, but using climate data) professionally for thirty years. They have their value but always for a purpose, in conjunction with data input and output validation. They are always questionable particularly when lacking in scope, review and data and better when strong in these in quality assurance areas and with ongoing support and change in response to improvement feedback. Imperfections are inevitable and it is observing such model failures, then openly debated that leads to improvements in science.
Without models in science I would think much of modern maths, and our digital world would not exist.
Knowing good science and recognising inferior science is a skill important for those relying on it.

Top
#1469842 - 31/08/2018 19:10 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Nature's Fury]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7557
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Nature's Fury
People can argue all they want but it isn't that complicated.

Even on a basic level without going into all the data and science, it's pretty logical. In the last 250 years of civilisation we've been pumping huge and ever-increasing amounts of C02 and methane into the atmosphere through all our activities. So naturally greenhouse gas levels have been measured to increase. We all know how greenhouse gases work and their effects. It's simple cause and effect. And we've seen that humans can have significant detrimental effects on our atmosphere - we nearly destroyed our ozone layer from CFCs and that was in a much shorter period of time. It's incredible that a scientific theory which is so strongly supported by evidence and has practically a unanimous consensus in the scientific community is so debated. In that case we should probably challenge every other scientific theory - atoms aren't real, the earth is flat, smoking is good for us, CFCs don't destroy the ozone layer.

No doubt there are natural climate cycles and there will continue to be until the end of the solar system. These will affect climate in various and at times significant ways, but there is a clear quantifiable culprit in this case and it isn't some speculated natural cycle.

Unfortunately this topic has been obscured by a whole range of factors: 'manufactured debate' from lobby groups with vested interests, the public's lack of interest or awareness of basic scientific principles, misinformation and emotional commentary on social media, a preference by many people to bury their heads in the sand because of the scale and destructive potential of the problem, and an increasing social and intellectual movement that challenges the very notion that there is such a thing as 'knowledge' and 'fact' only agendas. So many of the counter-arguments have been answered (including some on this very thread already), but people just continue to spin to suit their perspective and then accuse climate scientists of doing the same thing.

While the world argues and does nothing year after year we're 1 degree away from reaching the first of the climate feedback processes that will basically condemn us to run-away warming anywhere up to 6 degrees. We won't actually start doing anything until the effects are so devastating that we simply can't ignore it anymore and by then it's too late. A world at the target of 2 degrees warmer would be very uncomfortable and challenging to civilisation, but if you've read anything about 3-6 it starts to become progressively more apocalyptic and social breakdown would be unavoidable.

Just my 10 cents. I'm not even going to bother with this thread because it's pointless. I'm sure some posters will give a point-by-point rebuttal of each sentence of my post with their own explanations, interpretations and pseudo-science. And then someone else will give a rebuttal of their ideas and round and round we go. You won't convince those who advocate anthropogenic climate change that it's 'all a lie'. And you certainly won't convince skeptics that it's true and we need to take action. So we'll spend the next decades continuing to argue and do nothing until it's too late. However when that time comes I doubt the skeptics will still be so vocal and proud of themselves for obfuscating the issue.



....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). Sometimes folk should just look outside the window, remember whats been predicted, then take stock of the cost of all the alarmism.

Top
#1469844 - 31/08/2018 19:14 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Flowin]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7557
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Flowin
Shame this "not the climate changes thread" has so much mention of mention of debate on the antonym:(

Re models which is where I think Mike started with this thread, they are an aspect of science, and without them new scientific discoveries would be far less. I have scoped, developed, and used models (not climate simulation, but using climate data) professionally for thirty years. They have their value but always for a purpose, in conjunction with data input and output validation. They are always questionable particularly when lacking in scope, review and data and better when strong in these in quality assurance areas and with ongoing support and change in response to improvement feedback. Imperfections are inevitable and it is observing such model failures, then openly debated that leads to improvements in science.
Without models in science I would think much of modern maths, and our digital world would not exist.
Knowing good science and recognising inferior science is a skill important for those relying on it.



None have an issue with using models, ....it's just the refusal of some to accept when they are wrong (eg last 12 months).

If models worked well, there would be no arguments on WZ forums.

Top
#1469852 - 31/08/2018 20:26 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: 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.

Originally Posted By: Petros
Sometimes folk should just look outside the window, remember whats been predicted, then take stock of the cost of all the alarmism.


Yes they should. Climate scientists have been predicting steady rate of warming for decades. Which is exactly what we see. Those who disagree with the climate scientists are constantly predicting cooling, yet the climate continues to warm. I clearly remember the excited predictions from early 2008 that the climate would continue to cool due to the solar downturn and change in climate cycles. I said the cooling was only temporary. Every year since that prediction was made has been hotter. Told you so.

Top
#1469853 - 31/08/2018 20:38 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
Yep we are warmer than the figure plucked out of nowhere by someone..... a whole 0.32 of a degree warmer in July. Last week the weekly value was -0.008c

Top
#1469854 - 31/08/2018 20:44 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7371
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
How do you debunk stuff like this though? https://twitter.com/i/status/954018594848993280

If you run it through from the 1800s to now, there is a clear warming trend. What is the counter-argument here?

Top
#1469862 - 31/08/2018 21:56 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mega]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Mega
How do you debunk stuff like this though? https://twitter.com/i/status/954018594848993280

If you run it through from the 1800s to now, there is a clear warming trend. What is the counter-argument here?


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. If they're so unreliable, how can we then base a forecast on them?

Top
#1469864 - 31/08/2018 22:19 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
The 1800s was during the Glasberg solar Minimum. It was not as severe as the Dalton Minimum and much less severe than the Maunder. It makes perfect sence that the temps would have been rising since then. We are just getting into the Modern Minimum AKA the Eddy Minimum. We are just starting to se this having an effect. The modern Minimum is predicted to be at least as severe as the Dalton and possibly the Maunder. Mostly Grand solar Minimum last for at least 30 year but last anything up to 150+years. The recent drought in Europe exposed some of the low water markets on rocks in the bottom of some rivers. Large marks were made on these rocks during the the Maunder Minimum. It’s beginning again

Top
#1469865 - 31/08/2018 22:30 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 728
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Daily milked? I guess physics and math are not worth studying. Beliefs are more important.


Edited by Funkyseefunkydo (31/08/2018 22:35)

Top
#1469866 - 31/08/2018 23:03 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mega Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 03/02/2003
Posts: 7371
Loc: Maryborough, Wide Bay, QLD
Originally Posted By: Kino
Originally Posted By: Mega
How do you debunk stuff like this though? https://twitter.com/i/status/954018594848993280

If you run it through from the 1800s to now, there is a clear warming trend. What is the counter-argument here?


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. If they're so unreliable, how can we then base a forecast on them?


Originally Posted By: adon
The 1800s was during the Glasberg solar Minimum. It was not as severe as the Dalton Minimum and much less severe than the Maunder. It makes perfect sence that the temps would have been rising since then. We are just getting into the Modern Minimum AKA the Eddy Minimum. We are just starting to se this having an effect. The modern Minimum is predicted to be at least as severe as the Dalton and possibly the Maunder. Mostly Grand solar Minimum last for at least 30 year but last anything up to 150+years. The recent drought in Europe exposed some of the low water markets on rocks in the bottom of some rivers. Large marks were made on these rocks during the the Maunder Minimum. It’s beginning again


Points taken.

What about the ice caps melting and all that?

Top
#1469868 - 31/08/2018 23:36 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Morham Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 23/01/2017
Posts: 110
Loc: Penrith, NSW
Tis a fascinating discussion. Cheers to the mods for keeping the thread open. Appreciate it.

And what is the cost of the alarmism? Wind farms? Solar power? Tesla batteries?

Assuming all the thousands of scientists around the world are in on a massive data manipulating conspiracy and the climate is not warming....the worst case is we spend lots of money on wind farms, solar farms and cleaner energy. Which is actually good for humans.

Assuming they are right, and earth is warming too much, human civilisation takes a hit. Some areas become uninhabitable, some areas get flooded, probably war over resources. There would be mass migrations to cooler climates in the far south or north.

Also realise we live in the age of russian style bot opinion spam. When you read that nonsense like it will never snow again in some region, or by 2022 all glaciers will have melted..groups easily hire these troll farms to inject as much extremism on both sides of the argument so as to confuse and divide opinion.

Finally, are there any good models showing how much earth will cool with the impending solar minimum? Because Penrith was bloody hot this year in summer! smile

Top
#1469869 - 31/08/2018 23:56 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
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.


Edited by adon (01/09/2018 00:00)

Top
#1469872 - 01/09/2018 03:45 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
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.

Top
#1469876 - 01/09/2018 07:40 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
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: 3461
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: 3461
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: 5331
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: 7557
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: 2420
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 Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2013
Posts: 3752
Loc: Gordonvale
Here is a basic chart of CO2 going back 400,000 years:

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

MTD: 204.4mm

YTD: 2458.6mm

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: 7371
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: 343
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: 507
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: 3461
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: 3461
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: 3461
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]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7646
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: 79
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: 7371
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: 79
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: 2872
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: 79
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: 2872
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
#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 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
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: 507
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 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
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 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
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: 3461
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: 3461
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: 2025
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: 7646
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: 2025
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 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
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: 2025
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: 3461
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: 7557
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: 7557
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
#1470005 - 03/09/2018 10:55 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
I need to qualify the above by saying 3 degree is our best guess given our current undertanding of the feedbacks as depicted in the Radiative forcing graphic above. It might be 2, it might be 4.5.

Top
#1470009 - 03/09/2018 11:39 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Petros
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?



The cart and horse work both ways.

If enough CO2 is added to the atmosphere to double concentrations, then earths temperature would rise by about 2 degrees within 50-100 years. And rise by about 3 degrees after thousands of years. It is basic physics that earths temperature must raise by 1 degree for radiative effects, and that water vapor and ice albedo will add substantial positive feedbacks, and then highly uncertain what clouds may add (or subtract)

And during the ice ages, temperature changes due to orbital variations resulted in increases in atmospheric Co2. This is due to basic chemistry - a warmer ocean dissolves less Co2 so some of it must escape into the atmosphere.

The lags are on a similar scale, and that is no surprise. In both cases the lag depends on getting heat and gas mixed through the depths of ocean, and achieving some level of equilibrium.

So in the current situation we are adding Co2 to the atmosphere. This warms up the planet, which means that the ocean must also release Co2 into the atmosphere, potentially resulting in more warming.

But.

Observations show that atmospheric CO2 is rising at roughly 50% of the rate that we add it to the atmosphere. This is partly because it still takes time for the ocean to absorb its fair share of Co2 being added to the atmosphere. So on one hand the ocean is absorbing Co2 over time as it mixes deeper down, and on the other hand the ocean is emitting Co2 over time as it warms up. Currently absorption is winning, and it is estimated that 26% of our Co2 is being absorbed into the oceans.

Carbon cycle changes are a critical part of the climate change picture, and one with great uncertainties. Much of the IPCC report, and the primary temperature projections are done on the basis of Co2 increasing by a specified amount. However there are some important changes to the carbon cycle that may mean that we end up with more or less carbon in the atmosphere than can be purely accounted for by human emissions.

Co2 really is plant food, and according to my previous link about 25% of our Co2 is absorbed by plants etc due to improved growth. However there is much speculation that this could change in the future, and that we may do enough damage to the biosphere that we would actually lose carbon from our plants and forests. Eg tipping points such as loss of Amazon rainforest. Permafrost is now thawing and contains huge amounts of Carbon. If all this carbon was released quickly it would be a disaster. As in a real chance of killing all or most of us. The carbon would be released as methane which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than Co2. But frost, particularly once you go down a couple meters into the ground takes a long time to thaw, and we are probably talking hundreds to thousands of years. If the carbon is released slowly it will only release small amounts of methane at any one time, which quickly turns into Co2 (years to decades).

Top
#1470013 - 03/09/2018 12:48 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7557
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Petros
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?



The cart and horse work both ways.

If enough CO2 is added to the atmosphere to double concentrations, then earths temperature would rise by about 2 degrees within 50-100 years. And rise by about 3 degrees after thousands of years. It is basic physics that earths temperature must raise by 1 degree for radiative effects, and that water vapor and ice albedo will add substantial positive feedbacks, and then highly uncertain what clouds may add (or subtract)

And during the ice ages, temperature changes due to orbital variations resulted in increases in atmospheric Co2. This is due to basic chemistry - a warmer ocean dissolves less Co2 so some of it must escape into the atmosphere.

The lags are on a similar scale, and that is no surprise. In both cases the lag depends on getting heat and gas mixed through the depths of ocean, and achieving some level of equilibrium.

So in the current situation we are adding Co2 to the atmosphere. This warms up the planet, which means that the ocean must also release Co2 into the atmosphere, potentially resulting in more warming.

But.

Observations show that atmospheric CO2 is rising at roughly 50% of the rate that we add it to the atmosphere. This is partly because it still takes time for the ocean to absorb its fair share of Co2 being added to the atmosphere. So on one hand the ocean is absorbing Co2 over time as it mixes deeper down, and on the other hand the ocean is emitting Co2 over time as it warms up. Currently absorption is winning, and it is estimated that 26% of our Co2 is being absorbed into the oceans.

Carbon cycle changes are a critical part of the climate change picture, and one with great uncertainties. Much of the IPCC report, and the primary temperature projections are done on the basis of Co2 increasing by a specified amount. However there are some important changes to the carbon cycle that may mean that we end up with more or less carbon in the atmosphere than can be purely accounted for by human emissions.

Co2 really is plant food, and according to my previous link about 25% of our Co2 is absorbed by plants etc due to improved growth. However there is much speculation that this could change in the future, and that we may do enough damage to the biosphere that we would actually lose carbon from our plants and forests. Eg tipping points such as loss of Amazon rainforest. Permafrost is now thawing and contains huge amounts of Carbon. If all this carbon was released quickly it would be a disaster. As in a real chance of killing all or most of us. The carbon would be released as methane which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than Co2. But frost, particularly once you go down a couple meters into the ground takes a long time to thaw, and we are probably talking hundreds to thousands of years. If the carbon is released slowly it will only release small amounts of methane at any one time, which quickly turns into Co2 (years to decades).


But didnt DeltaT just explain above that the oceans are now so acidic that even if the sea temp falls, the oceans could not return to absorbing CO2 again like they always used to do!??

Top
#1470015 - 03/09/2018 13:00 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Because they aren't - it's a bit like the "no more snow" claims. Rubbish. Meanwhile best snow depth here since - what - the 1980's or even earlier?

Top
#1470016 - 03/09/2018 13:14 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Petros


But didnt DeltaT just explain above that the oceans are now so acidic that even if the sea temp falls, the oceans could not return to absorbing CO2 again like they always used to do!??


Where?

Top
#1470021 - 03/09/2018 14:39 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 343
Originally Posted By: Kino
Because they aren't - it's a bit like the "no more snow" claims. Rubbish. Meanwhile best snow depth here since - what - the 1980's or even earlier?


Since 2004. This year doesn’t come close to any of the big years.


Edited by Eigerwand (03/09/2018 14:41)

Top
#1470022 - 03/09/2018 14:53 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 343
Here is a link to the snow depth and comparisons. I have set it to compare this year to 1981, one of the biggest years on record. What is quite good about this resource is the snowdepth at different altitudes. It becomes quite noticeable after running a few comparisons that as part of the general downward trend in snowfepths at Spencer’s, the snowdepths at the lower altitude sites just don’t get anywhere near what they used to nowadays. This would seem to fit well with the general trend of snow and marginal areas, such as the CT’s and NT’s in decline.

http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-energy/water/inflows/snow-depths-calculator/

Top
#1470024 - 03/09/2018 15:09 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
"But didnt DeltaT just explain above that the oceans are now so acidic that even if the sea temp falls, the oceans could not return to absorbing CO2 again like they always used to do!??"


No, I didn't mention acidity.

The ocean is not "acidic" at a ph of 8+ but is acidifying (ph dropping) due to dissolving CO2.

Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.
Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008).

Higher concentration of dissolved carbon together with warming both reduce the oceans effectiveness as a carbon sink.

Top
#1470027 - 03/09/2018 16:34 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 343
T’was I that mentioned the acidity of oceans on the increas. Solid post there Delt-T.

This really is a turkey 🦃 shoot 😂

Top
#1470031 - 03/09/2018 17:51 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7646
Loc: Adelaide Hills
Originally Posted By: marakai
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.

Bold -- It's not me that needs to be persuaded of something (or anything for that matter).

Top
#1470032 - 03/09/2018 18:00 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7557
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Applogies for the incorrect reference to you posting on ocean acidity DT. Yes I meant to address this to Eiger regarding his post #1469900 (which included a "thread best" gilt edged smack down at me).

Eiger - could you please expand on present level of ocean acidity, what has caused it, and why this level of acidity will negate future CO2 absorption should the sea temps fall again. I've started looking, havent given up yet, but could you provide a reference to this hypothesis?


Edited by Petros (03/09/2018 18:03)

Top
#1470034 - 03/09/2018 18:09 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7557
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Delta-T
"But didnt DeltaT just explain above that the oceans are now so acidic that even if the sea temp falls, the oceans could not return to absorbing CO2 again like they always used to do!??"


No, I didn't mention acidity.

The ocean is not "acidic" at a ph of 8+ but is acidifying (ph dropping) due to dissolving CO2.

Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.
Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008).

Higher concentration of dissolved carbon together with warming both reduce the oceans effectiveness as a carbon sink.



Thanks for that DT, perhaps you and Eiger can discuss elsewhere the conflicts evident between the posts you two have made on this matter?

Unless re-educated, I will continue to understand that a warming ocean will shed CO2 that was sequested at a time when it was cooler.


Edited by Petros (03/09/2018 18:11)

Top
#1470039 - 03/09/2018 18:42 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: Petros
Thanks for that DT, perhaps you and Eiger can discuss elsewhere the conflicts evident between the posts you two have made on this matter?

Unless re-educated, I will continue to understand that a warming ocean will shed CO2 that was sequested at a time when it was cooler.


The ocean is not shedding CO2 it is a net sink. The sink does become less effective at higher temperature.

What conflict you are referring to?

Top
#1470045 - 03/09/2018 19:18 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 343
There is no conflict.

Here’s a link: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-re...n-acidification


And here’s another: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-acidity

Funny, none of these sites findings end in ‘IMO’ ..

Top
#1470059 - 03/09/2018 21:18 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
lurker Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/09/2010
Posts: 72
Loc: Aitkenvale
@ Sillybanter

I agree with your sentiments. The politics of the science drives me nuts.

Furthermore, I would argue rather that the "camps" aren't split into deniers/alarmists in reality, but is more akin camps that are not fully trusting in Scientists themselves.

I often see one camp pointing fingers towards "lobbyists" but rarely do I see those same people acknowledging that scientists themselves have some skin in this game. Whereas I see the other camp regularly mentioning "fraud" without acknowledging those that have vested interests.

That's my analysis of how the camps play their game.

Since I jumped out of lurk mode, I believe we are warming due to man made emissions, but have zero chance of getting anything useful "modelling" due to the complexity...



Edited by lurker (03/09/2018 21:19)
Edit Reason: added a few words
_________________________
My little weather station website - http://www.users.on.net/tsvjus_nbn

Top
#1470065 - 03/09/2018 23:43 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: lurker]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
Originally Posted By: lurker
@ Sillybanter

I agree with your sentiments. The politics of the science drives me nuts.

Furthermore, I would argue rather that the "camps" aren't split into deniers/alarmists in reality, but is more akin camps that are not fully trusting in Scientists themselves.

I often see one camp pointing fingers towards "lobbyists" but rarely do I see those same people acknowledging that scientists themselves have some skin in this game. Whereas I see the other camp regularly mentioning "fraud" without acknowledging those that have vested interests.

That's my analysis of how the camps play their game.

Since I jumped out of lurk mode, I believe we are warming due to man made emissions, but have zero chance of getting anything useful "modelling" due to the complexity...



Good points there. I generally shun both extremes of the argument for precisely those reasons. I am deeply suspicious of when Governments and especially the UN start pushing this stuff hard.

The assumption that scientists are above the political influence and having bias is just laughable. If one’s career is dependent of there being a problem which need to be researched, by god there will be a problem! Same thing with people saying that more co2 is helping the planet(yes it makes plant grow better and use less water but....)

The thing that annoys me so much is that we could be absolutely carbon neutral and we could have been for some time. We could have achieved this by not having to change our lives too much at all. However the political parties pushing hardest for us to be carbon neutral refuse to even consider it. We could be Thorium powered by now.

Top
#1470068 - 04/09/2018 06:37 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: lurker]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 343
Originally Posted By: lurker
@ Sillybanter

I agree with your sentiments. The politics of the science drives me nuts.

Furthermore, I would argue rather that the "camps" aren't split into deniers/alarmists in reality, but is more akin camps that are not fully trusting in Scientists themselves.

I often see one camp pointing fingers towards "lobbyists" but rarely do I see those same people acknowledging that scientists themselves have some skin in this game. Whereas I see the other camp regularly mentioning "fraud" without acknowledging those that have vested interests.

That's my analysis of how the camps play their game.

Since I jumped out of lurk mode, I believe we are warming due to man made emissions, but have zero chance of getting anything useful "modelling" due to the complexity...



But the difference between the two is that one side makes observations of the natural world and uses them to add to a theoretical framework that helps to understand the observations made and offers an insight into what may happen in the future. Scientists may unfortunately still need to play politics but they can’t send the World’s cryosphere into rapid decline, force Australia to see heat records vastly out number cold, warm the World’s oceans etc to fit in with their model, this is what is happening in the real world and the theory of AGW offers the most probable explanation of why these changes are happening.

You can’t know anything for certain in science, something that any scientist knows. You go with what seems to fit best at that particular time based on the observations and knowledge at hand. This is getting at the probabilistic reasoning I mentioned earlier. The theory of AGW appears to be more probable than other theories, such as natural variability based on what evidence is available. I can’t put it anymore simply than that. The frustration arises because an issue that is only understandable via the scientific method, somehow got hijacked by types like Tony Abbott who think reasoning like “God put the forests in Tasmania for man’s needs” deserve to be placed on the same footing as scientific research.




Edited by Eigerwand (04/09/2018 06:38)

Top
#1470073 - 04/09/2018 07:26 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
I'd prefer that climate science be judged by the facts instead of trying to guess who has more bias:

All scientists agree that the direct warming for doubling CO2 due to radiative changes is 1 degrees. Ice albedo is obviously a substantial positive feedback. Water vapor is obviously a substantial feedback unless the world becomes drier. Cloud changes may be positive or negative. Climate models from several decades ago predicted warming. At a time when the world was generally considered to be cooling. And we have seen warming at roughly the rate predicted.

Now how does scientist bias change any of this?

Top
#1470079 - 04/09/2018 07:47 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Not all scientists agree.

And the world can’t become drier as the mass of water remains constant. It shifts between reservoirs, yes, but the mass doesn’t change.

Top
#1470084 - 04/09/2018 08:21 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Kino
Not all scientists agree.

And the world can’t become drier as the mass of water remains constant. It shifts between reservoirs, yes, but the mass doesn’t change.


I should have said the atmosphere becomes drier not the world. And of course that is in relative humidity terms. That is if water vapor is not a substantial positive feedback then the water vapor content of the atmosphere must stay relatively constant, which makes for a lower relative humidity as it warms.

And how does your claim that not all scientists agree change any of the basic scientific facts I have presented?

Top
#1470089 - 04/09/2018 09:11 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 343
Originally Posted By: Kino
Not all scientists agree.

And the world can’t become drier as the mass of water remains constant. It shifts between reservoirs, yes, but the mass doesn’t change.


But most do. So until those that don’t put forward a better explanation that fits in with OBSERVATIONS made in the environment, it is more sensical to go with the side with the greater amount of evidence for their theories.

Guys like you always like to dismiss stuff with the natural variability explanation, but what observable natural variation would be contributing to the Earth’s warming at a similar level of impact? The solar thing again? Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field? None of these have anywhere near the level of rigour as theories when compared to AGW.

Did you even bother to look at the Snowy Hyrdo data I linked for you or is Snowy Hydro in on the conspiracy too?

Your point about the world not being able to become drier shows again just how one dimensional thinking on your side of the debate generally is. Yes, maybe the total volume of water doesn’t change but the distribution and the rate at which it can be deluged due to the higher water carrying capacity of warm air certainly does. How do you find solace in some zero sum fact like the total amount of water on Earth staying the same as a way to dismiss potential and it would appear observable knock on effects of changing the Earth’s hydrology cycle? It’s totally ridiculous. This is again why it is a heated argument. The world is a finite system, if you add new variables you can expect new outcomes.

Top
#1470117 - 04/09/2018 11:57 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
I like how we get lectured about physics and the rules and laws et al, yet happy to generalise with "all". In any context, most does not equal all.

George White said this and it's very apt, after reading posts in here:
Quote:
This prejudice is not limited to those with a limited understanding of the science, but is widespread among those who think they understand and even quite prevalent among notable scientists in the field. Anyone who has ever engaged in communications with an individual who has accepted the consensus conclusions has likely observed this bias, often accompanied with demeaning language presented with extreme self righteous indignation that you would dare question the ‘settled science’ of the consensus.

Correcting broken science that’s been settled by a consensus is made more difficult by its support from recursive logic where the errors justify themselves by defining what the consensus believes. The best way forward is to establish a new consensus. This means not just falsifying beliefs that support the status quo, but more importantly, replacing those beliefs with something more definitively settled.

Since politics has taken sides, climate science has become driven by the rules of politics rather than the rules of science. Taking a page from how a political consensus arises, the two sides must first understand and acknowledge what they have in common before they can address where they differ.

Alarmists and deniers alike believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that GHG gases contribute to making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and that the climate changes. The denier label used by alarmists applies to anyone who doesn’t accept everything the consensus believes with the implication being that truths supported by real science are also being denied. Surely, if one believes that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, that man isn’t putting CO2 into the atmosphere, that GHG’s don’t contribute to surface warmth, that the climate isn’t changing or that the laws of physics don’t apply, they would be in denial, but few skeptics are that uninformed.

Most skeptics would agree that if there was significant anthropogenic warming, we should take steps to prepare for any consequences. This means applying rational risk management, where all influences of increased CO2 and a warming climate must be considered. Increased atmospheric CO2 means more raw materials for photosynthesis, which at the base of the food chain is the sustaining foundation for nearly all life on Earth. Greenhouse operators routinely increase CO2 concentrations to be much higher than ambient because it’s good for the plants and does no harm to people. Warmer temperatures also have benefits. If you ask anyone who’s not a winter sports enthusiast what their favorite season is, it will probably not be winter. If you have sufficient food and water, you can survive indefinitely in the warmest outdoor temperatures found on the planet. This isn’t true in the coldest places where at a minimum you also need clothes, fire, fuel and shelter.

While the differences between sides seems irreconcilable, there’s only one factor they disagree about and this is the basis for all other differences. While this disagreement is still insurmountable, narrowing the scope makes it easier to address. The controversy is about the size of the incremental effect atmospheric CO2 has on the surface temperature which is a function of the size of the incremental effect solar energy has. This parameter is referred to as the climate sensitivity factor. What makes it so controversial is that the consensus accepts a sensitivity presumed by the IPCC, while the possible range theorized, calculated and measured by skeptics has little to no overlap with the range accepted by the consensus. The differences are so large that only one side can be right and the other must be irreconcilably wrong, which makes compromise impossible, perpetuating the controversy.


I was merely pointing out Mikes incorrect facts, as you and he and others always do.

Its not one dimensional to point out that the earth cannot become drier - the statement is incorrect. The water may be stored differently, but it cannot be lost. Some continents may become drier, some wetter. The water cycle is a closed cycle. Unless you are re-writing the hydrological cycle, and then show us your paper. The tropics have become wetter, while other areas have become drier. But overall the mass doesn't change. It cannot. Otherwise, where is the water going????

Answer is it's going nowhere and this is hyperbolic screeching that often follows challenging.


Edited by Kino (04/09/2018 11:58)

Top
#1470119 - 04/09/2018 12:38 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3461
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Kino


I was merely pointing out Mikes incorrect facts, as you and he and others always do.

Its not one dimensional to point out that the earth cannot become drier - the statement is incorrect. The water may be stored differently, but it cannot be lost. Some continents may become drier, some wetter. The water cycle is a closed cycle. Unless you are re-writing the hydrological cycle, and then show us your paper. The tropics have become wetter, while other areas have become drier. But overall the mass doesn't change. It cannot. Otherwise, where is the water going????

Answer is it's going nowhere and this is hyperbolic screeching that often follows challenging.


I've already corrected my mistake. I meant atmosphere not world, and relatively speaking not absolute.

I see you have not responded to what I consider the primary facts of AGW:

1) Warming due to Co2 radiation is 1 degrees
2) Water vapor is a substantial +ve feedback, unless the relative humidity of the atmosphere becomes lower
3) Ice albedo is a subsnantial +ve feedback.
4) Clouds/circulation changes etc are an unknown feedback
5) Model predictions of warming from the early 80s predict quite well the amount of warming observed since then.

Whats your best response to these facts? That somewhere in Australia had the best snow season for a dozen or so years? That Some scientists disagree with something that you have yet to specify? That I made a mistake in saying world instead of atmosphere and you are going to make a big deal of this even after I've corrected it?

Is this the best argument we are going to get on the against side??

Top
#1470120 - 04/09/2018 12:41 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 343
That White post is just such utter garbage if one has half a brain. The CO2 in a greenhouse analogy is completely irrelevant and what is all that rot about cold and hot environments! Yeah of course humans do better in warmer climates but if parts of the world that are already warm get warmer, there will come a point where they are TOO WARM! How is it possible for an inference as obvious as this to go unnoticed!? He basically undoes himself in that last point with the solar energy vs CO2. If we are in a period of lower solar energy then why are we still observing a planet on a warming trend? The theories repeatedly put forward by the nay side DO NOT MATCH THE OBSERVATIONS, hence they are not taken up by the scientific consensus.

Your apparent inability to comprehend my point of a more sporadic and volatile water cycle despite the unchanging amount of total water is testament to the futility of this debate. Do you want to live in a world of frequent drought but is then broken by violent floods? This is what has been predicted to happen as the world warms and appears to be the case. Before you say it, yes drought and floods have always happened but the severity and frequency of this may change in a warming planet to the detriment of most if not ALL ecosystems currently on the planet.


Edited by Eigerwand (04/09/2018 12:42)

Top
#1470129 - 04/09/2018 13:56 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2872
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
And there is the key point “on record”. Given our infantessimely small record base against the actual age of the planet, the prophetic claims are nothing more than hyperbolic scaremongering.

Top
#1470155 - 04/09/2018 18:45 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
...Given our infantessimely small record base against the actual age of the planet...


But at some point intelligent, curious people have to say to themselves: hmmm, that's a bit odd.


Top
#1470158 - 04/09/2018 19:13 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 2025
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Delta-T
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.


I absolutely agree with the radiative forcing of CO2, however I disagree with the attribution of all "suspected" warming being caused by the Anthropologically produced CO2.

CO2 as we know has a logarithmic effect, it also shares it's absorbtion capacity in the IR range with a number of other gases as well, Water vapour being the main competitor and most abundant but also Ozone, Methane and assorted other trace gases as well.

Now given all that, CO2 is not the only variable effect on the climate of the Earth, it is also itself subject to changes in the climate as well. Oceans warm, permafrost melts, glaciers retreat, CO2 increases naturally and vise versa as well.

Deforestation, Volcanism, Plankton, Ice ages etc all have an effect on CO2 levels outside any effect of that the combustion of Fossil fuels might have and one would imagine that the Earth coming out of a mini ice age after the Maunder Minimum would also see a natural increase in CO2 as well.

CO2 is a hot topic button for radical environmentalist's and also those who would like to see a "One World Government". An easy target to point at an say "look what we are doing to the planet, we need to make a bunch of rules for EVERYBODY.
Add to that the lucrative subsidized rent seeking income available to Multi National Corporations with renewables, the funding available to universities for research via grants and the academic and journalistic political correctness gone mad (Witness Peter Ridd JCU) and you have a perfect storm of much ado about nothing.

There is so much we don't know as a species about climate and weather, Models don't do clouds, plankton swarms, CO2 lag, The recent Greening of the planet, to name just a few items of interest.

Yet people seem quite happy to accept a so called consensus view that CO2 is some magic button that must be immediately and radically addressed "Before it is too late".

Sorry, but but before we wreck our economy and have pensioners too afraid to turn on an aircon or heater due to ridiculous electricity prices, family's struggling to pay bills and all the associated extra cost's that come with ever increasing energy prices etc.

How about we have just a single peer reviewed scientific paper that directly links Anthropogenic CO@ with any apparent effect on the Earths Climate ? It's been well over thirty years now with countless billions in funding and yet not one single piece of Empirical evidence exist's of a direct link at all.

We had a near thirty year pause in any sort of warming, surely that right there is proof positive that there are major issues with the theory and the models.

Meanwhile what you wont see pasted 24/7 over the mainstream media, unlike record warming.

Quote:
Over 1000 snow and cold records have been set over the last 30 days in ... However, it won't last, as the 6-10 day outlook shows temperatures below ... have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along ...
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/united-states-weather

Top
#1470166 - 04/09/2018 21:15 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


I absolutely agree with the radiative forcing of CO2, however I disagree with the attribution of all "suspected" warming being caused by the Anthropologically produced CO2.




If we agree on the phyics - there is no "suspected" warming, it is estimated warming and observed warming. The phyics etimates about 3 degrees from a doubling in atmospheric concentration. Are there other drivers? Yes of course. Could they alter the outcome away from 3C? Of course. Uncertainties? Yep...but for now it the best estimate.



2. What Peer reviewed Empirical Evidence currently exist's, that any Anthropologically produced CO2 has had any effect on the Earths Climate ?

You use the word "Anthropologically". Obviously there is no difference with naturally occurring CO2 molecules. Are you suggesting we are unable to determine the amount (of CO2) humans are responsible for?

Top
#1470170 - 04/09/2018 21:51 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Morham Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 23/01/2017
Posts: 110
Loc: Penrith, NSW
Originally Posted By: Kino
And there is the key point “on record”. Given our infantessimely small record base against the actual age of the planet, the prophetic claims are nothing more than hyperbolic scaremongering.

Slightly off topic, but imagine if we were trying to ban cfcs due to evidence they were depleting the ozone layer today.

In 2018 no government could pass that. There would be too many people ready to blame the lack of evidence. Blaming the scientists for their agendas and trying to get university grants?

I can see the arguments already.

Anyway, once again this is one of the most civil global warming discussions I have ever seen. As an observation though, one side of the argument is presenting more compelling findings than the other.

Top
#1470174 - 04/09/2018 22:43 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mick10 Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 02/11/2001
Posts: 25341
Loc: Kirwan, Townsville - NQld.
This thread has turned into a climate change debate.
As per the WZ admin rule from June 2013, there are to be no climate change related topics or discussion.
Therefore this thread is closed.
_________________________
Kirwan, Townsville Nth Qld -
November 2018 total - 25.0mm (58mm)
December 2018 total - 107.4mm (125mm)
2018 Yearly total to date - 984.8mm (1107mm)

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


Who's Online
13 registered (nocturnal1, woodhouse, Rhys., kathrynsview, Valleywatch, T.rex, gberg, Dan101, Perfect Storm, explorer, Red Watch, Ronfishes, 1 invisible), 132 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Crystal_xx, Dragonfly, keef, Quagmelson
Forum Stats
29735 Members
32 Forums
24028 Topics
1507589 Posts

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