Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
-
Who is your source RTE news:pac: where you are forced to pay for your own brainwashing...it wasn't too long ago that they used to have ads on tv threatening people with jail if they didnt pay...yeah they are a respectable source to get your news from
The best source for science, is the scientific literature. If you get your science information from any media source, you should always look for their source and make sure that it is
A) credible
and
that theyre not misrepresenting what that source says
What you're doing in your post above, is mistaking a clickbait headline in the gutter press as actual science reporting
I read the express article (give me those minutes of my life back please), not a single quote from a single scientist saying that they're baffled about anything.The article describes them as being 'baffled' by 'Old Faithful'
The problem is, that scientists know how Geysers work, their frequency of eruption relates to the water supply that feeds thier reservoir and how connected this is to other geysers feedng off the same reservoir
Old Faithful is more regular than most because it is isolated from the other geysers, and the timing of the eruption is because this is the flow rate of the underground streams that replenish the water. The eruptions have become a lot less frequent in recent decades due either to changing rainfall patterns reducing the water supply, or seizmic events that disrupt the flow of water undergound (minor tremors can cause blockages that divert water)
Indeed, the only thing baffling about this entire article, is the idea that anyone would cite it at all in a discussion about climate change as a way to disprove science in general0 -
Not one single credible person ever has said that science around climate change has been completely finished and we know everything with ‘absolutely Certainly’
What the IPCC said in their last synthesis report was that the link between climate change and GHGs is unequivocal
This means we know that it is not just natural variability with close to certainly and we need to move away from that debate and onto solving the crisis, and further research into the scale and impacts of climate change
A new study has shown that events where the Wet Bulb temperature has surpassed 35c have already begun around the world, and that millions of people live in coastal regions that are at increasingly high risk of these deadly heatwaves
The heatwave in 2003 that killed tens of thousands in Europe didn’t see a tw exceeding 28c so we don’t need to get even close to tw35c to see life threatening conditions.
These are conditions that are incompatible with human life
That's very disingenuous. More than half of the people who died were over 75. There is a huge difference in temperature rising over hundreds of years and heatwaves. They can't be compared.
The IPCC aren't an authority on anything. They just aggregate data without testing that data. They also attract the bottom rung of scientists because you're expected to do a lot of work for free. They never correct reports and along with the other UN bodies, are a bit of a joke. Referring to the IPCC for advice is like going to the trainee hairdresser for a haircut.0 -
EhThat's very disingenuous. More than half of the people who died were over 75. There is a huge difference in temperature rising over hundreds of years and heatwaves. They can't be compared.
The IPCC aren't an authority on anything. They just aggregate data without testing that data. They also attract the bottom rung of scientists because you're expected to do a lot of work for free. They never correct reports and along with the other UN bodies, are a bit of a joke. Referring to the IPCC for advice is like going to the trainee hairdresser for a haircut.
So the over 75s don’t count as people then???
And heatwaves are one of the most damaging and predicted consequences of Climate change
Extreme heatwaves of the past are now normal summer temperatures and unprecedented heatwaves are the new extreme
And the IPCC attract the very best scientists in their field.
Peer review in science is almost always done by unpaid volunteers.
Scientists do it for free because it is in their nature to want to contribute to the scientific process, and because being contributing or lead authors on a project like the IPCC is very prestigious and would help them enormously in their career and in securing funding for their own future research0 -
Good for you, but as recent posts have shown, it is you and your beloved 'climate scientists' that unquestioningly buy into and push establishment approved conspiracy theories and not I. That you cannot even acknowledge this shows that you are not really a good faith actor at all, but instead, are little more than a zealot. But no matter, you keep believing what you need to believe in, and I'll do the same.
Yeah yeah yeah, you keep talking about how the coronavirus was a chinese Bioweapon and calling me a conspiracy theorist0 -
Advertisement
-
Scientists do it for free because it is in their nature to want to contribute to the scientific process, and because being contributing or lead authors on a project like the IPCC is very prestigious and would help them enormously in their career and in securing funding for their own future research
That's some leap of faith, scientist, therefore science, therefore my nature is to contribute to science at all causes. Perhaps true of pre-modern science, but today's scientists are regarded with high esteem, this inevitably draws people to associate themselves with science for the approval received from society. I can't speak globally, but in Ireland pay between €50,000 to €75,000 can be expected, hardly on the bread line.
The reward comes from ground breaking discoveries and/or media/entertainment pay outs (not significant I'd imagine)
Probably explains why scientists author and step forward to validate sensationalist claims.0 -
That's some leap of faith, scientist, therefore science, therefore my nature is to contribute to science at all causes. Perhaps true of pre-modern science, but today's scientists are regarded with high esteem, this inevitably draws people to associate themselves with science for the approval received from society. I can't speak globally, but in Ireland pay between €50,000 to €75,000 can be expected, hardly on the bread line.
The reward comes from ground breaking discoveries and/or media/entertainment pay outs (not significant I'd imagine)
Probably explains why scientists author and step forward to validate sensationalist claims.
If you'd bothered to read my post I said that they also do it to improve their own reputation which helps their career. And there's nothing wrong with that
5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...
(Just counting down until someone comes along and says these scientists are just faking their results so they can get more grant funding..)0 -
Eh
So the over 75s don’t count as people then???
And heatwaves are one of the most damaging and predicted consequences of Climate change
Extreme heatwaves of the past are now normal summer temperatures and unprecedented heatwaves are the new extreme
And the IPCC attract the very best scientists in their field.
Peer review in science is almost always done by unpaid volunteers.
Scientists do it for free because it is in their nature to want to contribute to the scientific process, and because being contributing or lead authors on a project like the IPCC is very prestigious and would help them enormously in their career and in securing funding for their own future research
That's just not true. The IPCC isn't prestigious at all, I'm not sure where you're getting that information from. I suspect you're more interested in winning an argument than getting to the crux of the issue and you seem to have taken my comment personally so I will leave it at that.0 -
Yeah yeah yeah, you keep talking about how the coronavirus was a chinese Bioweapon and calling me a conspiracy theorist
The last, agonising yelps of a dying poodle.
You are a conspiracy theorist, simply because you believe everything told to you by other conspiracy theorists.. like 'expert' Mann, which in itself doesn't say much for his general intelligence, does it? But please say and do what you need to do in order to jump to his defence, because that is what good cultists do for their leaders... defend them no matter what.New Moon
0 -
Eh
Scientists do it for free because it is in their nature to want to contribute to the scientific process, and because being contributing or lead authors on a project like the IPCC is very prestigious and would help them enormously in their career and in securing funding for their own future research
So, they 'do it for free', not only out of the good of their hearts, but also with the added bonus of securing a lucrative career. Rightio.
BTW, who or what funds such scientists?The IPCC
A little odd that 'IPCC' stands for 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change', yet I have heard it claimed that they are not politically motivated at all..New Moon
0 -
Advertisement
-
I can't speak globally, but in Ireland pay between €50,000 to €75,000 can be expected, hardly on the bread line.
.
On average, the average nurse in Ireland will make €35,000; while the average shop assistant, who, like nurses, do not have the luxury of 'working from home' during this pandemic and are very much on the front lines doing what they have to do in order to keep people healthy, fed and watered, barely scrape the minimum wage.
If there is one thing this 'lockdown' has shown, is how grossly under rewarded so-called 'low skilled' labour is, and how grossly over valued the much touted 'skilled' labour is.New Moon
0 -
The last, agonising yelps of a dying poodle.
You are a conspiracy theorist, simply because you believe everything told to you by other conspiracy theorists.. like 'expert' Mann, which in itself doesn't say much for his general intelligence, does it? But please say and do what you need to do in order to jump to his defence, because that is what good cultists do for their leaders... defend them no matter what.
I didn't believe your Chinese bioweapon conspiracy theory so I guess that's just dis-proven your characterisation of me.
but tbh, this an extremely boring exchange0 -
-
that's right, you're getting it nowSo, they 'do it for free', not only out of the good of their hearts, but also with the added bonus of securing a lucrative career. Rightio.
The money they get from their jobs, and/or the funding they get to sustain them while they carry out research.BTW, who or what funds such scientists?
your level of analysis astounds me.A little odd that 'IPCC' stands for 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change', yet I have heard it claimed that they are not politically motivated at all..
Why did nobody notice that before??
The IPCC is a UN body formed to to prepare reports on the science surrounding climate change. There is political interference but if you think that interference has been to try to make the reports more alarmist than the evidence supports then you're living in a parallel universe0 -
The money they get from their jobs, and/or the funding they get to sustain them while they carry out research.
Where does that money/funding come from? That is what I asked. Can you ever answer a question clearly?
I never claimed 'political interference' regarding the IPCC, but you curiously admitted there is. Care to expand further on this revelation of yours?New Moon
0 -
How could I be more clear than saying that the money they get to live on comes from their jobs or research grantsWhere does that money/funding come from? That is what I asked. Can you ever answer a question clearly?
What more do you want?
There are loads of scientists doing unpaid peer review
There are loads of jobs and industries that employ scientists and loads of funding bodies for researchI never claimed 'political interference' regarding the IPCC, but you curiously admitted there is. Care to expand further on this revelation of yours?
Do you not consider governments to be political then?
The IPCC is a consensus led organization. The summary reports cannot be released until there they are signed off. This prevents any single government from driving an agenda that clashes with the science, but it also means that there is pressure from governments to understate any findings that would damage their interests
Now, it’s up to you to argue that governments used their influence to make these reports more alarming than the evidence supports, and how they managed to achieve this consensus at a negotiating table that includes OPEC nations that are very influential and hostile to limitations on fossil fuel restrictions0 -
How could I be more clear than saying that the money they get to live on comes from their jobs or research grants
What more do you want?
There are loads of scientists doing unpaid peer review
There are loads of jobs and industries that employ scientists and loads of funding bodies for research
Further proof that you are a bad faith actor. You haven't been clear at all because my question remains unanswered. What are you trying to distract from exactly?
Do you not consider governments to be political then?
The IPCC is a consensus led organization. The summary reports cannot be released until there they are signed off. This prevents any single government from driving an agenda that clashes with the science, but it also means that there is pressure from governments to understate any findings that would damage their interests
Now, it’s up to you to argue that governments used their influence to make these reports more alarming than the evidence supports, and how they managed to achieve this consensus at a negotiating table that includes OPEC nations that are very influential and hostile to limitations on fossil fuel restrictions
Good grief..
The only 'agenda' any single national Government has.. or ought to have.. is the continued well being of the people who elected them, and it is to they, and they only, that they are fully accountable too.
As an aside, here is an example of how tax payers money is being wasted by the UN:
http://www.codebluecampaign.com/press-releases/2019-3-19-burundiNew Moon
0 -
Is anybody prepared to offer any plausible cause and effect hypothesis for more frequent and stronger El Nino events? As I mentioned in my rather lengthly offering, that is probably the real reason for the observed rapid warming trend that took place around 1998 to 2012. I am asking on purely scientific grounds, does the AGW lobby have some theoretical basis for this or are they just willing to say something like a warming atmosphere can sustain longer El Ninos? It is obviously very much of a chicken and egg type question and I'm not saying I know the answer because I know that I don't. There were also frequent El Nino events in the 1950s which saw a general peak of warmth in the mid latitudes at least.
Although my research concentrates on external causation factors, I don't have well-developed external causation candidates identified for the El Nino phenomenon which tends to have two primary frequencies of about 7 years and 2.3 years. The historical record of El Ninos has been so variable that an external causation seems unlikely. But if the causation is the eventual buildup of trigger conditions, then what are those? Obviously the El Nino sets in when the cold Humboldt current moving north to the west of Chile and Peru weakens, so the real question is what causes that weakening? Can it be predicted? Why have we had a greater frequency of moderate or strong El Nino events in modern times? How much of the recent global warming is due to them? (I think the answer to that is most of it). And I will say to be fair, just because the El Nino might be the main cause of the warming does not reduce the concern about human modification because that could be a candidate in the cause and effect, so the real research question is, our fault or something else we haven't properly identified?
If the latter, then this warming may go away. Let's look at that 1876-78 El Nino in a bit more detail. That's about when a monitoring and understanding of El Nino was in its formative stages. Anything postulated about earlier El Ninos would be more and more hypothetical moving back further into the 19th century. There may have been another strong one around 1868-69. But the weather at Toronto from about 1869 to 1875 was quite cold compared even to the rather cold decades that came before them. There was also a peak in snowfall in those winters, in particular 1869-70 which had twice the normal amount. During that interval, rainfall went from excessive to near average to drought-like by about 1874. Things were not good in general, there was a deep financial panic in 1873 caused by the collapse of the silver market, so the attention of the public might have shifted from the wild weather to that crisis.
Some time around mid-December 1875 a very fundamental shift in the climate pattern over North America set in, record cold all through 1875 suddenly changed to record warmth. It was 61 F on New Years Eve in Toronto, a December record that was not beaten until the strong El Nino of 1982. The rest of the winter of 1875-76 was very mild, although it turned wintry in late March for a brief spell. It was a good ten degrees warmer than what people had grown used to seeing and very similar to winters like 2015-16. The summer of 1876 was rather hot and very dry. The winter of 1876-77 was another cold to mild transition, not quite as strong a pulse as seen in the previous year. I would describe the weather of most of 1877 as near normal for those decades, with a warm spell in the autumn. Then 1878 brought some very mild and extremely wet weather, the summer was both hot and wet which is an unusual combination for that climate. September had three times normal rainfall mainly due to a hurricane remnant moving inland and dumping its load over the Great Lakes region. As in Europe the winter of 1879 was rather harsh although not record breaking, then the year seemed to be trying to shift back to the cold climate that had prevailed before this El Nino driven warm spell. This was briefly overcome by a remarkably warm October but even before that ended it was another flip to very cold and snowy conditions. However, that did not last long and the winter of 1879-80 was a very mild one, one of the least snowy winters on record. The year 1880 stayed quite warm relative to normal until mid-October, then flipped to extreme cold with a number of records set in November. The rest of the winter was cold too, although less anomalously so, and the spring of 1881 had an unusual prolonged drought which ended with levels of heat never seen in the previous forty years in mid-May. After a rather average sort of summer, September of 1881 also broke warm records and after UHI correction remains the warmest of the series. This warm signal may have coincided with a secondary El Nino peak in 1881-82. The winter remained mild although quite variable in January.
Then the climate shifted on a large scale once again and went back to the persistent cold regime. There were very few warm spells of any length from mid-1882 to about the end of 1886. Krakatoa erupted in August 1883 but all of the year before that event was extremely cool in the Toronto record so we know that the dust veil just prolonged rather than caused the cold spell of the 1880s.
Point being that the climate shifted twice by larger amounts than recently seen, and we have no plausible human modification theory available at all. So why can that not be the underlying reason for the shifts from mid-1990s into the period 1998-2012 and back to colder in the mid-2010s decade. Here again, the difference is mainly duration. The anomalous warm spell of 1876 to 1882 lasted less than seven years, let's say from Dec 22 1875 to end of March 1882 a span of 6.3 years. The cold spell that followed covered either four or six years depending on whether you extend to 1888 after a warmish 1887. Note this similarity though, the warmth of the recent spell then led to two "polar vortex" winters (2013-14 and 2014-15) and extreme cold in North America (Feb 2015 ranks third coldest after UHI correction). The summers of those years were not particularly warm either. Before the 1997-98 El Nino, there had been some extreme cold also, with a milder winter (1995) sandwiched between a run of colder ones.
How big were the shifts? They were both at least 2 C deg and perhaps closer to 3 C deg in terms of adjacent five-year averages. The main difference seems to be that we came out of the 1998-2012 warm spell into a modified colder pattern that has seen a couple of El Nino return engagements (notably 2015-16). They came out of the 1876-82 spell into a very cold interval. However that didn't last and the 1890s broadly speaking were as warm as 1876-82 had been from a combination of perhaps a few mid-level El Ninos and the ongoing climate shift that seemed to accompany the northward drifting geomagnetic field.
This is what I think might be happening -- we are after all in the middle portions of a relatively long inter-glacial and perhaps the Pacific just slowly continues to warm at all depths because ocean temperatures are very conservative relative to land atmospheric variability. Perhaps the slowly warming Pacific naturally sets into more frequent El Nino episodes as its main mechanism for spreading the warmth (in pulse cycles). This tends to support my view that the climate is likely to continue a natural warming tendency. And if this is broadly correct, I don't see what we could possibly do about it, other than to wait out the inter-glacial for what is inevitably going to be a colder natural climate (and therefore Pacific Ocean) in millennia before the onset of that next glacial about which I note we are doing absolutely nothing, and if we think a rise in sea levels of 5-10 metres is a big deal, then how about advancing continental glaciers into the G7 and European Union?0 -
If you'd bothered to read my post I said that they also do it to improve their own reputation which helps their career. And there's nothing wrong with that
I read that, that's why I made the point of how sensationalist claims are made and why scientists back them up.
Unless you are suggesting that 100% of them are in it fr some 'calling' and they all operate with honest and good intentions all of the time.
I'm sure there are plenty of genuine folks in there, but every group has their bad apples. The bad apples tend to sell more newspapers.0 -
...There is political interference but if you think that interference has been to try to make the reports more alarmist than the evidence supports then you're living in a parallel universe
Ah here :rolleyes:
There is a list as long as my arm where they have predicted that by now:
* Entire nations of the Pacific would be under water by now
* The Arctic would have melted in summer by now
* British kids just would not know what snow was by now
* Parts of southeast Asia, Bangladesh in particular, would be gone under water
* The deserts would be growing bigger and bigger
* Hurricanes and Typhoons would be in great numbers and stronger than ever
* and so on...
None of these predictions/alarmist reports have come to pass. None.0 -
Advertisement
-
The IPCC is a consensus led organization. The summary reports cannot be released until there they are signed off. This prevents any single government from driving an agenda that clashes with the science, but it also means that there is pressure from governments to understate any findings that would damage their interests
It's a consensus of like minded people. Where are the examples of understated findings?
1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
2. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
3. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
4. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
5. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
6. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
7. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
8. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
9. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
10. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ’2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
11. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
12. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
13. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
14. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
15. Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary [of the IPCC report]. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
16. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a [IPCC] process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
17. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
18. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
19. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
20. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
21. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
22. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
23. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
24. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
25. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
26. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
27. Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”0 -
It's a stupid question that has no answer 'Who funds such scientists?'Further proof that you are a bad faith actor. You haven't been clear at all because my question remains unanswered. What are you trying to distract from exactly?
Every scientist is funded differently depending on who they work for and what research funding they are drawing down.
All scientists are expected/required to declare conflicts of interests and if they fail to do so, and get caught, it is extremely damaging to their reputation and they could lose their jobs.
Instead of a stupid question about "who funds such scientists?" (such being any scientist that takes part in peer review as unpaid reviewers) I can say that a certain subset of scientists, who are the most vocal 'skeptics' on climate change have been shown to have received funding directly from vested interest groups, or through front groups intended to conceal the true source of that funding. The Koch brothers alone donated over a hundred million dollars in a 10 year period to organisations do little other than push out conservative propaganda including climate change denial.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Places like Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar and other OPEC countries are not democracies for a start, others are barely functioning democracies so they are not accountable to their own citizensGood grief..
The only 'agenda' any single national Government has.. or ought to have.. is the continued well being of the people who elected them, and it is to they, and they only, that they are fully accountable too.
You're flipping back and forth on both sides of the argument here, on one side you point at the word 'Government' in the IPCC clearly alluding to the fact that governments are not necessarily neutral on a scientific matter, and just now, you're saying that governments are all sweetness and light who do everthing in the best interests of their citizens...
It's very difficult to discuss this with you because you're just throwing out random statements that you clearly do not beleve yourself and don't even have any meaning in themselves.
I said that OPEC governments have an interest in downplaying the risks of burning Oil, your response to this was to completely deflect with some wierd vacuous statement that makes no sense.
Even if governments were always acting in their citizens best interests, they might still believe that selling as much oil as possible is in their best interests as it boosts their economy
Of the most influential governments in the IPCC, which of them do you think have been pushing them to release more alarmist reports than are justified by the science, and which have been doing everything they can to downplay the risks?
Think about it honestly and see if your opinion changes.
As a complete and utter non sequitur that has absolutely nothing to do with the IPCCAs an aside, here is an example of how tax payers money is being wasted by the UN:
http://www.codebluecampaign.com/press-releases/2019-3-19-burundi0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »Is anybody prepared to offer any plausible cause and effect hypothesis for more frequent and stronger El Nino events? As I mentioned in my rather lengthly offering, that is probably the real reason for the observed rapid warming trend that took place around 1998 to 2012. I am asking on purely scientific grounds, does the AGW lobby have some theoretical basis for this or are they just willing to say something like a warming atmosphere can sustain longer El Ninos? It is obviously very much of a chicken and egg type question and I'm not saying I know the answer because I know that I don't. There were also frequent El Nino events in the 1950s which saw a general peak of warmth in the mid latitudes at least.
Although my research concentrates on external causation factors, I don't have well-developed external causation candidates identified for the El Nino phenomenon which tends to have two primary frequencies of about 7 years and 2.3 years. The historical record of El Ninos has been so variable that an external causation seems unlikely. But if the causation is the eventual buildup of trigger conditions, then what are those? Obviously the El Nino sets in when the cold Humboldt current moving north to the west of Chile and Peru weakens, so the real question is what causes that weakening? Can it be predicted? Why have we had a greater frequency of moderate or strong El Nino events in modern times? How much of the recent global warming is due to them? (I think the answer to that is most of it). And I will say to be fair, just because the El Nino might be the main cause of the warming does not reduce the concern about human modification because that could be a candidate in the cause and effect, so the real research question is, our fault or something else we haven't properly identified?
If the latter, then this warming may go away. Let's look at that 1876-78 El Nino in a bit more detail. That's about when a monitoring and understanding of El Nino was in its formative stages. Anything postulated about earlier El Ninos would be more and more hypothetical moving back further into the 19th century. There may have been another strong one around 1868-69. But the weather at Toronto from about 1869 to 1875 was quite cold compared even to the rather cold decades that came before them. There was also a peak in snowfall in those winters, in particular 1869-70 which had twice the normal amount. During that interval, rainfall went from excessive to near average to drought-like by about 1874. Things were not good in general, there was a deep financial panic in 1873 caused by the collapse of the silver market, so the attention of the public might have shifted from the wild weather to that crisis.
Some time around mid-December 1875 a very fundamental shift in the climate pattern over North America set in, record cold all through 1875 suddenly changed to record warmth. It was 61 F on New Years Eve in Toronto, a December record that was not beaten until the strong El Nino of 1982. The rest of the winter of 1875-76 was very mild, although it turned wintry in late March for a brief spell. It was a good ten degrees warmer than what people had grown used to seeing and very similar to winters like 2015-16. The summer of 1876 was rather hot and very dry. The winter of 1876-77 was another cold to mild transition, not quite as strong a pulse as seen in the previous year. I would describe the weather of most of 1877 as near normal for those decades, with a warm spell in the autumn. Then 1878 brought some very mild and extremely wet weather, the summer was both hot and wet which is an unusual combination for that climate. September had three times normal rainfall mainly due to a hurricane remnant moving inland and dumping its load over the Great Lakes region. As in Europe the winter of 1879 was rather harsh although not record breaking, then the year seemed to be trying to shift back to the cold climate that had prevailed before this El Nino driven warm spell. This was briefly overcome by a remarkably warm October but even before that ended it was another flip to very cold and snowy conditions. However, that did not last long and the winter of 1879-80 was a very mild one, one of the least snowy winters on record. The year 1880 stayed quite warm relative to normal until mid-October, then flipped to extreme cold with a number of records set in November. The rest of the winter was cold too, although less anomalously so, and the spring of 1881 had an unusual prolonged drought which ended with levels of heat never seen in the previous forty years in mid-May. After a rather average sort of summer, September of 1881 also broke warm records and after UHI correction remains the warmest of the series. This warm signal may have coincided with a secondary El Nino peak in 1881-82. The winter remained mild although quite variable in January.
Then the climate shifted on a large scale once again and went back to the persistent cold regime. There were very few warm spells of any length from mid-1882 to about the end of 1886. Krakatoa erupted in August 1883 but all of the year before that event was extremely cool in the Toronto record so we know that the dust veil just prolonged rather than caused the cold spell of the 1880s.
Point being that the climate shifted twice by larger amounts than recently seen, and we have no plausible human modification theory available at all. So why can that not be the underlying reason for the shifts from mid-1990s into the period 1998-2012 and back to colder in the mid-2010s decade. Here again, the difference is mainly duration. The anomalous warm spell of 1876 to 1882 lasted less than seven years, let's say from Dec 22 1875 to end of March 1882 a span of 6.3 years. The cold spell that followed covered either four or six years depending on whether you extend to 1888 after a warmish 1887. Note this similarity though, the warmth of the recent spell then led to two "polar vortex" winters (2013-14 and 2014-15) and extreme cold in North America (Feb 2015 ranks third coldest after UHI correction). The summers of those years were not particularly warm either. Before the 1997-98 El Nino, there had been some extreme cold also, with a milder winter (1995) sandwiched between a run of colder ones.
How big were the shifts? They were both at least 2 C deg and perhaps closer to 3 C deg in terms of adjacent five-year averages. The main difference seems to be that we came out of the 1998-2012 warm spell into a modified colder pattern that has seen a couple of El Nino return engagements (notably 2015-16). They came out of the 1876-82 spell into a very cold interval. However that didn't last and the 1890s broadly speaking were as warm as 1876-82 had been from a combination of perhaps a few mid-level El Ninos and the ongoing climate shift that seemed to accompany the northward drifting geomagnetic field.
This is what I think might be happening -- we are after all in the middle portions of a relatively long inter-glacial and perhaps the Pacific just slowly continues to warm at all depths because ocean temperatures are very conservative relative to land atmospheric variability. Perhaps the slowly warming Pacific naturally sets into more frequent El Nino episodes as its main mechanism for spreading the warmth (in pulse cycles). This tends to support my view that the climate is likely to continue a natural warming tendency. And if this is broadly correct, I don't see what we could possibly do about it, other than to wait out the inter-glacial for what is inevitably going to be a colder natural climate (and therefore Pacific Ocean) in millennia before the onset of that next glacial about which I note we are doing absolutely nothing, and if we think a rise in sea levels of 5-10 metres is a big deal, then how about advancing continental glaciers into the G7 and European Union?
El Nino and La Nina are phenomena, they are manifestations of underlying conditions that we can measure and attribute these labels to them when those conditions arise
The frequency and magnitude of the El Nino and La Nina events are dependent on oceanic and atmospheric circulations all of which are affected by the warming of the planet through GHGs
In other words, stronger and more frequent ENSO events are a symptom of a changing climate, not a cause.
Yes, there were natural climate cycles and oscilations in the past because climate does change naturally, Not a single person with half a brain would deny that, but even natural climate shifts have a cause, either in our orbital mechanics, the output of the sun, or the compositin of our own atmosphere driven by natural events, biological or geological, and there is the very slow shifting of tectonic plates that alters circulation on a geological timescale. If you want to investigate the cause, rather than postulating hypothetical causes for which you have no evidence, you could see the elephant in the room and link it to the changing atmospheric composition driven by human activity
All of your historical analysis ignores the change in radiative forcing that is directly attritutable to Athroprogenic GHGs as if the warming of the oceans has nothing to do with climate change0 -
It's a consensus of like minded people. Where are the examples of understated findings?
1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
2. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
3. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
4. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
5. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
6. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
7. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
8. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
9. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
10. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ’2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
11. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
12. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
13. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
14. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
15. Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary [of the IPCC report]. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
16. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a [IPCC] process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
17. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
18. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
19. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
20. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
21. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
22. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
23. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
24. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
25. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
26. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
27. Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
Given Oneric's question about funding science, someone please tell me who funds these particular scientists? Because from a scan of this list, I can see a lot of names that I know have been paid significant sums of money from organisations who deny climate change for political reasons.
Also, it's considered rude to copy and paste whole posts from other sources without attributing them
In this case, it came from a blog called 'Grumpy Denier' I wonder if this is why you didn't post the source.
https://grumpydenier.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/0 -
You didn't reference any of these predictions in any of the IPCC reports. Where does it say that by 2020 any of these conditions would exist?Ah here :rolleyes:
There is a list as long as my arm where they have predicted that by now:
* Entire nations of the Pacific would be under water by now
* The Arctic would have melted in summer by now
* British kids just would not know what snow was by now
* Parts of southeast Asia, Bangladesh in particular, would be gone under water
* The deserts would be growing bigger and bigger
* Hurricanes and Typhoons would be in great numbers and stronger than ever
* and so on...
None of these predictions/alarmist reports have come to pass. None.0 -
Most scientsts do not make sensationalist claims, especially not in their capacity as scientists, (whatever about their personal lives) and making such claims does not help their career as respectable scientistsI read that, that's why I made the point of how sensationalist claims are made and why scientists back them up.
Unless you are suggesting that 100% of them are in it fr some 'calling' and they all operate with honest and good intentions all of the time.
I'm sure there are plenty of genuine folks in there, but every group has their bad apples. The bad apples tend to sell more newspapers.
Not all scientists are honest and good intentioned all of the tme, in fact you poste a list of scientists that includes many examples of scientists with very poor reputation for honesty and integrity0 -
Isn't it just incredible that Akasia, who deifies scientists (who he agrees with) and the scientific method, sees no problem in throwing those scientists who might disagree with him into the lake of fire. Scarily fascistic.
Anyway, M.T, it might be worth looking at the 'SOI' indice as it gives a rough idea of large scale weather patterns in the northern region of the southern Pacific over time.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/soi-data-files/
Data goes back only towards the end of 1991, and the general rule of thumb is that the more negative the SOI number, the more it will correlate with an El Nino; similarly, the more positive, the more it will coincide with La Nina conditions.New Moon
0 -
Given Oneric's question about funding science, someone please tell me who funds these particular scientists? Because from a scan of this list, I can see a lot of names that I know have been paid significant sums of money from organisations who deny climate change for political reasons.
Also, it's considered rude to copy and paste whole posts from other sources without attributing them
In this case, it came from a blog called 'Grumpy Denier' I wonder if this is why you didn't post the source.
https://grumpydenier.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/
That's a debate for yourself and Oneric. I have no problem with Climate scientist funding, regardless if they are supportive of AGW or not. I'm not blinded to the fact that either side have financial motive when publishing works.
The quoting was hardly to take credit, it was merely an example of lack of consensus regarding IPCC.
It's also not quoted from your link or poster within that link. No doubt you googled it and choose the site that furthered your agenda, which is to attack the poster and not the post. The quotes were compiled in years before your link.
Also most of the scientists you are applauding don't directly contribute to the IPCCs recommendations.0 -
That's a debate for yourself and Oneric. I have no problem with Climate scientist funding, regardless if they are supportive of AGW or not. I'm not blinded to the fact that either side have financial motive when publishing works.
Nor I, but it still remains unanswered as to who funds such fat cat salaries for climate scientists. Remember, these are the very people who are telling the proletariat that we are all doomed, yet future life-long and lucrative careers within this circle are being aspired too. Something doth not add up correctly here.
In the words of our lord and saviour Al Gore, we can always 'follow the money'. But lordie, how that backfired on himself. Akasia likes to bring up the Koch Brothers influence on science when it science he does not agree with, but ignores that very same influence on the agenda he agrees with.New Moon
0 -
Advertisement
-
The purpose of citing your sources is to allow others the benefit of checking them. The most basic requirement for anyone who considers themselves a sceptic on anythingThat's a debate for yourself and Oneric. I have no problem with Climate scientist funding, regardless if they are supportive of AGW or not. I'm not blinded to the fact that either side have financial motive when publishing works.
The quoting was hardly to take credit, it was merely an example of lack of consensus regarding IPCC.
It's also not quoted from your link or poster within that link. No doubt you googled it and choose the site that furthered your agenda, which is to attack the poster and not the post. The quotes were compiled in years before your link.
Also most of the scientists you are applauding don't directly contribute to the IPCCs recommendations.
I didn’t find the site that furthers my agenda, this is the original source of that list.
And it includes people like Fred Singer. Do you think he is a credible independent source given his record?
Do you even know who he is?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gStdVdVqx7k
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement