cc facts

Forum Sponsor
backmarkerducati said:
It really doesn't have anything to do with their belief or disbelief in climate change... and it is just not in the next budget, not off the table.
Click to expand...

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't believe in climate change; the two big questions are how significant is carbon emission and what if any effect will any of these treaties and taxes actually have on global temp. Don't kid yourself, these decisions are coming in part because, despite the standard doom and gloom tag line, the observed reality isn't exactly adding up to impending doom.
 
Neil_V said:
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't believe in climate change; the two big questions are how significant is carbon emission and what if any effect will any of these treaties and taxes actually have on global temp. Don't kid yourself, these decisions are coming in part because, despite the standard doom and gloom tag line, the observed reality isn't exactly adding up to impending doom.
Click to expand...
nah, all depends on who/where ya hang with..
 
Came across an interesting figure from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is from what they call their "fourth assessment report."

ts01.jpg


Then I looked at their latest one, the fifth report.

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It isextremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimateof the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. Anthropogenicforcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th centuryover every continental region except Antarctica. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland icesheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likelymade a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) and to global mean sea level riseobserved since the 1970s.
Click to expand...

That text comes coupled with this figure, from the fifth report,

Fig%201.09-01.png
 
The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. Anthropocentric forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every continental region except Antarctica.
Click to expand...

Now what Makes Antarctica different from every other continent? And why did I highlight surface temperature?

.... Because surface temp data on every other continent is affected by hundreds of other variables such as changes in surface land use, urban heat sink etc... Antarctica has none of that, there for marginal increase in surface temp over the last 60 years... lines up nicely with what the satellite data has shown in the troposphere over the 30ish... which is precisely where the models hypothesize the warming should have occurred ... now that's interesting.


More interesting discussion

[video=youtube;gJwayalLpYY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY[/video]
 
Neil_V said:
Because surface temp data on every other continent is affected by hundreds of other variables such as changes in surface land use, urban heat sink etc... Antarctica has none of that, there for marginal increase in surface temp over the last 60 years...
Click to expand...

Right, which are "anthropocentric forcings." That's what the text says. Surface temp increase on many continents is due to man.

Neil_V said:
[video=youtube;gJwayalLpYY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY[/video]
Click to expand...

A feel-good piece for sure, especially after what National Geographic has been putting out. I hope the models are as drastically inaccurate as they both feel.
 
tricky said:
Right, which are "anthropocentric forcings." That's what the text says. Surface temp increase on many continents is due to man.
Click to expand...

No dispute here. Just making light of the clear obfuscation of that fact. That paragraph paired with nothing but graphs on GHG's is yet another example of the oversimplification of a very complex system.... ie. everything is boiled down to a 1 bit answer... emissions. It's disingenuous, to say the least.


tricky said:
A feel-good piece for sure, especially after what National Geographic has been putting out. I hope the models are as drastically inaccurate as they both feel.
Click to expand...

No need for hope. Research the subject of model inaccuracy... plenty of information out there. In short, they all grossly overstate the warming... except those that run without feedbacks; they've been pretty spot on.
 
Interesting video, thanks for the link.

It's a shame that it was staged as NASA videos vs. two guys, who happened to agree on 99.9% of things discussed. Absence of intelligent/knowledgeable counterpoint was really the only flaw. Or, perhaps they didn't want to disrupt the discussion by having other people on ... understandable, if you want to convey one's opinion in short period of time. In that case, is there another TVO's segment with the majority disagreeing with them?

I found it interesting that the MIT dude said that he believes most scientists agree that most models are based on shaky or not exactly bullet-proof signal/sample ... based on what? or was he just conveying his wishful thinking? I always understood that most recognized scientists (recognized, whatever that means) call the current data sample certainly not perfect, but good enough (because it will never be perfect or with 100% certainty). Is there somewhere the ultimate score keeper? Sounds awful, but you know what I mean? Because, it's simply impossible for most average humans to comprehend every detail of the debate, and as such, most people make up their mind by looking at who is saying or supporting what. In another words if 99% of scientist say sample is good enough, 99% of people will agree ... but if it actually is 70/30 ... it will make people think, dig more and perhaps stop just repeating what their local TV or newspaper is saying or printing.
 
I think Dowlatabadi was meant to be the counter as he is not recognized as a skeptic; but in all honesty, truly critical debate on the subject is hard to find.. at least debate involving the ideologue types like a James Hanson etc... ask yourself why?


http://ires.ubc.ca/person/hadi-dowlatabadi/


p.s. that MIT guy is a world leader in atmospheric physics.. I think he's conveying his belief, based on a life's work. To be fair, those on the other side may be doing the same; but reading and watching a lot on both sides, the Lindzen's of this world strike me as far more rational, thus my shift to my current position.
 
Neil_V said:
p.s. that MIT guy is a world leader in atmospheric physics.. I think he's conveying his belief, based on a life's work. To be fair, those on the other side may be doing the same; but reading and watching a lot on both sides, the Lindzen's of this world strike me as far more rational, thus my shift to my current position.
Click to expand...

You bet ... you look at both sides and incline to one or the other, or none.

I know a good friend of mine who's been in the climate field for 4 decades (mostly with EC) ... let's just say that Richard is known to all of them. He had some good things to say about him, especially his work back in 80's and early 90's, but "don't get me started with him turning to the dark side" were his words to end the discussion ..... as I said, for many scientist, the data is good enough, for some, it will never be enough and none of them will certainly live long enough to see who was right or wrong. Too bad climate works this way, but as both sides say, it's very complex machine.
 
mxs said:
You bet ... you look at both sides and incline to one or the other, or none.

I know a good friend of mine who's been in the climate field for 4 decades (mostly with EC) ... let's just say that Richard is known to all of them. He had some good things to say about him, especially his work back in 80's and early 90's, but "don't get me started with him turning to the dark side" were his words to end the discussion ..... as I said, for many scientist, the data is good enough, for some, it will never be enough and none of them will certainly live long enough to see who was right or wrong. Too bad climate works this way, but as both sides say, it's very complex machine.
Click to expand...

This is a huge problem for me and one of the main reasons is see the other side as irrational. Rather than confront the claims head on, they turn to character assassination. Again I ask why none of the leading "climate catastrophist" will ever go head to head in a debate with the likes of Lindzen; Spencer; Christy; Svensmark; Veizer; Moore.. etc etc etc.

Instead they create blogs with entire pages dedicated to uncontested delegitimization of any claim they may make. Go to the skeptical science blog (created by one John Cook) and look at their page on Lindzen.. it's huge; and some of their replies to his claims.. sad really. Now, if they're paying that much attention, and are that invested in portraying him as "an enemy of science", I tend to think what he has to say threatens them.
 
No no no .... This particular person never "assassinates anyone" for what they believe in. What he does not like is the fact that these guys very willingly, on the other hand, write often half truths, from their point of view, which is enough for the often hungry and not very educated public. Let's be honest, a lot of ordinary people want to hear that it will all work out by itself, nobody likes massive intrusive change into their lifestyles. But Iunderstand, how you could see their evidence as half truth ...

While he had respect for Lindzen, I didn't get the sense that Christy, you mentioned before, falls not the same category .... Not everyone on the other side is created equal.

What I understand is, that the frustrations are high for someone who he worked with on data and models for four decades,and has to now explain, why some of his older colleagues sing a different song.

We have lunch on Tue .... So I will definitely poke in, as it interests me very much.
 
folks in the west have to comply with cc bs, meanwhile, other folks can do whatever they like,

eff cc whatever then
 
Last edited:
@MXS

The issue of truths is central to me going from a believer in the doom 10 years ago, to where I am today... An example:

'Severe weather such a Tornado's and Hurricanes, will increase in both intensity and frequency.' ... and you can substitute "will" for "have" depending on who's talking.

Now, you'd have to be under a rather large rock to have not heard those claims over the last decade... but can you point me to the evidence that supports either claim? The data certain doesn't support it, yet these guys get a mic shoved in their face and it spills out. Those types of radical predictions/fabrications are the backbone of the alarmist message, and IMHO, more than "people wanting to hear it will work it's self out", people these days seem to lap up anything with impending tragedy attached..

So here we are, 2 weeks away from another tax on energy (in other words, everything) starting Jan 1, backed by a "consensus" which I feel, at the very lest, I have shown to be a half truth in itself.

ps I didn't mean to imply your friend was actively working or trying to attack anyones character, rather the heavily invested alarmist such as those at "skeptical science". My apologies.
 
I didn't take it that way, he really doesn't come across as an alarmist of any kind (if he was I don't think I would welcome our debates). To me, his interest really is in the numbers and the best model possible ... which is obviously never near enough perfect.

I'll be pretending tomorrow that I am you talking at our lunch, let's see where it goes ... :-)
 
MacDoc said:
Every outlier in the weather record IS proof of climate change when the frequency of the events increase.
What is happening here ?

There are more intense snowfall and rain events....not more rain or snow events, more of the intense ones, same with cyclonic storms. That is AGW impacting weather. Hell Britain just started naming storms last year they were climbing in intensity so high. Climate drives weather and the change is most pronounced in the north....

The CLIMATE is getting warmer, we're responsible....get over it. What to do about it is the difficult issue. Rex Tillerson is correct ....it's an engineering problem ( BTW Exxon knew the score on CO2 in the 70s ).

Anyone in denial these days has a clinical problem with reality.
Click to expand...

Is there more.. seems to be plenty of debate and empirical evidence to suggest those claims are mere hyperbole.

Severe weather events... how about a Tornado?

ef3ef5t.png

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends
Click to expand...

... hrrmm

How about cyclonic activity

global_running_ace.png

https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/11/ace-in-the-hole/
Click to expand...

Or again, from NOAA themselves; where is this alarming trend we should be seeing since the industrial age?

Atlantic_Storm_Count.jpg

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/
Click to expand...

Snowfall? I could point you to 10 areas that show loss, and 10 that show gain.. again weather is not climate...

Can we focus on the facts now? Or are people like me still idiots?

Most important fact in my mind is the marginal increase in temp in the troposphere, where all the catastrophic warming is supposed to be happening according to the doomsday models. This despite 1/3 of all human CO2 contribution coming in the last 30 years

No doubt the earth is warming, and yes, CO2 has a part to play... but eliminate 'predictive models' and outlandish claims, and focus on the observed trends that are verifiable, and the models which have actually come close to being right (of note, run without feedbacks) and it becomes quite clear, quite quickly, somethings amiss with the "consensus".


On exxon and what they knew in 1970 lol... we don't truly know even a small percent of how it all works now! I'll just link this

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04...ic-changes-by-co2-variations-is-questionable/


As for "clinical problems" ... please do refrain from insult. No one else has insulted you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom