Mod Note: mickmackey1 , Shedbebreezy and Oneric3 have received warnings for being uncivil.
Lets get back on track and on topic and cut out the snide remarks.
Yes, warming is warming, but the rate of warming is the primary area of concern and the one that gets quoted the most. Quotes such as:
Well, just one observation I have to offer. Is there not a phenomenon of Latent Heat of Vaporisation?
Take 1 lt of water, heat it to 100 degrees by adding heat. Despite continuing to add more heat, the temperature does not increase, until all the water is converted to steam. After this point is reached, the addition of more heat will raise the temperature.
So I wonder... could the same phenomenon be happening with Planet Earth. Heat is being added all the time, but temperature is not raising much.
There are reports of ice melting at the N.Pole, Greenland ice sheets receding, Swiss glaciers and so on, not sure what is going on in Argentina etc
So IMO.... we do require to be careful, that just because the temperature is not rising much (or not as fast as one would expect) it could be because there is this phenomenon at work?
Water has a very high heat capacity so a lot of energy goes into raising its temperature. As such it can act as a heat sink and store excess heat, like what you say. This is a known factor in the global climate energy budget.
As water warms it releases stored CO2, just like a bottle of coke loses its CO2 as it goes flat over time. This leads to a positive feedback, with temperature further increasing, releasing more CO2, and so on.
It's been modelled over and over but the atmospheric response in the form of global atmospheric temperatures doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the less pessimistic forecasts (RPC4.5).
I wasn't just making up facts when I said that in the U.S., a lot of operational mets are at least mildly skeptical, I think this is an accepted fact in American weather circles, certainly not something I made up. I've noticed it myself, the people posting give enough information that you can tell who they are in the real world and the non-pro weather enthusiast members know who they are too, their local TV mets.
Most of them think this is over-hyped.
I never meant to imply that there is no warming, I just don't think the warming is even half down to human activity or presence, there could very plausibly be natural warming going on, let's face it, the chances are at least one in three if you accept that the three most likely signals at random are warming, cooling or steady-state.
Natural warming would be expected given the long interval of steady high-solar activity cycles from the 1917 peak to the 2001 peak. The period 1947 to 1989 had almost nothing but higher than normal peaks of solar activity. It correlates very well with temperature trends. The same thing happened after the Maunder minimum, with several quite active cycles in the 18th century and temperatures rose almost as high then as they are now.
The word "disingenuous" implies a deliberate distortion of facts. I am not the one doing that. I am quite sure that the 97-3 ratio is contrived and based on poorly worded survey questions combined with peer pressure. But whatever the real ratio is, we should be more concerned with the facts of this important subject. And the facts are that we simply cannot easily separate out human and natural factors in observed climate change. There are also problems with data sets, one reason why the public distrusts the "science" is that their experience is not ever-increasing warming, they think back to warmer years in the past and find the years offered up as "warmest yet" as rather average. For example, there has only been one reasonably warm summer in Britain and Ireland since the very hot ones in 2003 and 2006 (namely 2013), most of the rest have been very average by any standard. Even somebody teleported forward from the Maunder would have found 2016 or 2017 bog standard.
I guess the problem is that two groups start out with wildly different political assumptions and are willing to see the same set of evidence in two very different ways. To my mind, it would be more productive to reach a compromise, say what most would accept (recent warming may be up to half human caused and is not quite the apocalypse that some would have us believe), and then design a response if in fact a response is necessary.
And in all this back and forth, very little has been said about the fact that the southern hemisphere is not warming in higher latitudes there, in fact the evidence seems to suggest a slight cooling trend and expansion of sea ice. As 80% of the potential problems of sea level rises are related to that hemisphere, much of the discussion seems to be disproportionately focused on Greenland. The data from Greenland are not as disturbing as some seem to portray them. And sea levels have only risen incrementally since 1950.
I am wondering if the climate change lobby will define any outcomes that would cause them to rethink their position. We skeptics are always being challenged to rethink based on "the facts" which turn out to be their opinions. But what about some facts between now and 2025, what if there is no further warming even in the data sets they have designed? What if there's even a bit of cooling? Why should we recant our position when the actual data seem to support our point of view more than theirs? How many of their forecasts from 1990 to 2005 have materialized? No ice left in the north, an end to winter as we knew it, constant heat and drought (when they realized that was not happening it turned into more extremes, a very disingenuous concept in itself, because it is so easily serviceable with the help of a willing media partner, but is it true? As I showed with some fairly significant statistics, not true, almost false, at best a draw (same now as ever)... if there was ever a period of weather extremes it was the 19th century which was generally a cold period and untouched so we are led to believe by the hand of mankind). So which is it, warming causes more disruption, or cooling? You be the judge.
I will finish by saying this -- I have met persons who are presented as eminent climate experts and they are nothing of the sort, some of the non-professionals from politics, the media or other sciences know zero about climate, they are in this for the political benefits. And as for the professionals who are at the heart of this movement, I think some of them are sincere enough but I am not impressed with their body of work. Of course that cuts both ways. I wish there would be real "climate justice" to borrow their phrase, because it might be a lot different from what they imagine. But it seems odd, don't you think, that so many weather enthusiasts are skeptics. Why would that be, if the science was as sound as claimed? Would there be a lot of evolution sketpics on a biology forum? Probably not, and that's because evolution, while perhaps controversial too, is a well researched and documented science. You have to be very, very determined to hold a contrary position there. But climate science is almost junk science, and a lot of intelligent people know this. I am always surprised to find that people who are moderately left-wing in many of their other positions are drawn to the skeptical position. This is by no means some backwater of the alt-right, as the climate change people try to insinuate at times. And I think if there were less peer pressure, more people in the mainstream would openly rebel. This "science" didn't jump the fence, the horse missed and a lot of people know this. Time for politics and the media to catch on and demand accountability.
I've only just come on this thread and read the last post by M T Cranium, so I have a lot to catch up on.
In the meantime could I ask on what evidence is the statement,
"But it seems odd, don't you think, that so many weather enthusiasts are skeptics."
It is known, but widely overlooked when the vast majority of people refer almost exclusively to atmospheric heat content and talk of the 'pause' and 'hiatus' demonstrate this well. All the talk of global temperatures not rising completely ignored the rise in ocean heat content, and as you yourself say below, warmer water can hold less co2 so rising ocean temperatures now could just be a stop gap before we see a large increase in the rate of atmospheric warming.
Again, at this point, the RCP 4.5 scenario is barely distinguishable from RCP 8.5, they start to diverge in the middle of the next decade so your claims that we're on track for an optimistic outcome is a bit disingenuous.
And regarding the accuracy of the models, there have always been uncertainties so the models are never expected to be 100% accurate, but when the various models are analysed carefully with observed measurements of both land and ocean heat content, they have proven to be pretty accurate over all. https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Screen-Shot-2017-10-05-at-16.49.21.png[/mg]
The observed temperature increases have been slightly lower than the predictions in AR5 but the differences can be accounted for by elements that were not modeled like the declining solar output and a number of small volcanic eruptions.
There are lots of potential positive feedbacks that are not included in the climate models at all, and there is cause for concern over historical evidence showing that climate shifts can happen over the course of a few decades once a tipping point is reached. While these are by no means certain, and there is an awful lot of debate about how likely this is, these are relatively low probability High impact events and it would be very irresponsible to ignore the risk on the basis of optimism rather than a proper analysis of the dangers.
We need to support the scientific community to improve their modelling. They require resources to allow them to increase the resolution of their modelling systems, and to include things like ice sheet collapse, better precipitation models, better cloud models etc
Whatever, 4.5, 8.5, the fact is that observations are running on the low end of all RCPs, which makes the likelihood of them recovering to follow 8.5 even lower.
Exactly. And these elements are likely to continue into the future, which is why I made the point a while back that the temperature is likely to show a flatter rising trend than the projections that disregard these elements. This is happening for now anyway. These elements never get a mention in general discussion of warming, which invariably only focuses on the positive feedbacks.
There are way more pressing issues in the world that need tending to.
I think Manhattan was supposed to have been under 20 feet of water by now too.
And the Olympics are to be held in cyberspace in 2030 because it's too hot.
Sensitivity to co2 has been clearly exaggerated by eco activist political scientists banging the UN political drum at the UN funded and created IPCC.
It is contrived.
Cook et al, in a remarkable contribution to modern climate science, and reviewed by their peers, openly cooked the books.
If science relies on this level of open contrivance to demonstrate it's understanding of climate change, it's claimed understanding of the science of climate change leaves a lot to be desired.
But it also begs the question as to why this particular field of science feels it so necessary and so acceptable to openly contrive these constructs.
This brings the bona fides and the motivation of anyone still advocating this 97:3 ratio into question.
Let's not forget that this whole area has been mired in a lot of dubious "science".
Someone else mentioned the highly fictional but effective hockey stick chart "which has been hung out to dry" earlier, but let's not forget the climategate affairs either and the routine creation of and retrospective adjustment of data, based on hitherto unnoticed "calibration errors" etc.
These embarrasments are all strenuously defended by advocates who then expect to be taken credibly on other aspects of the science.
It isn't working terribly well if public attitudes are to be believed, where worrying about climate change consistently comes in at the bottom of global surveys:
Or corporate attitudes, in spite of the "our green credentials" commitments carefully bolted on to every corporate web page to please policy makers.
The science of climate change needs to stand back and take stock of itself and start taking some responsibility for the sheer lack of interest in its endeavours.
The sea is hiding the heat has taken a bit of battering lately.
So what "rise in ocean heat content" is being claimed?
The whopping big 0.1° rise over 50 years mentioned at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography the other day, in connection with a new study it's promoting?
Or the big fat zero degree rise in ocean temperatures NASA was touting a few years ago?
Seven years earlier and it was saying the oceans had warmed, then cooled then warmed, you get the picture:
Or was the much required "rise" in ocean temperatures created by simply adjusting the figures, conveniently jolting the oceans into "remembering" that they are storing all this lost heat?
Circular reasoning at it's best, employed to best effect when all else fails.
There is no plausible evidence of a rise in global ocean temperatures consistent with any catastrophic anthropgenically induced climate change theory.
Funny how the claimed authoritative settled science of climate change is built on the constantly shifting sands of contradictory scientific research.
Well you'll be delighted to hear that those mad fools at NASA have declared 2017 the second hottest year ever, after 2016.
But sure what have NASA ever done? Bunch of jokers
Tony Heller. In this video he discusses the fundamental deception behind the global warming.
Ever?? I doubt they've made such a claim tbh.
It seems like a pretty wild claim.
But hey, yes, maybe they're playing a joke with their readers, or maybe they're playing with words, using loose language to try to make a point.
If accuracy was important to them, then they surely would not have said "ever" but, "since records began".
Because, there's quite a difference in the two, a difference that may not be apparent to some of their readers.
See, I happen to think that accuracy is important to Nasa.
But then I also believe in the moon landings.
It was likely my omission. Sorry.