CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

sosndt

All sounds very good until it's becomes clear you are looking at Toronto only there fore you are looking at weather trends not climate.

I think everyone knows that local weather and global climate are different.

The temperature trends in Toronto could be steadily dropping for 200 years it still doesn't debunk IPCC.

Quite disingenuous of you to pretend it does.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram, you could have provided even a single link to some of the ‘other science’ that you find more convincing

Already done, Zharakova. BSc in physics and Astronomy, PhD in AstroPhysics. Not a climate scientist, but Solar Physicist. Only interested in suns affect on earth. while she explains we get a reprieve for the next 30 years due to Solar min, natural warming is inevitable.

Gaoth Laidir

DKO wrote: »

I have wondered about those charts showing a slowing or pause in ice loss Volume in the artic and Greenland. I’ve wondered what the science says about the idea that much of the more vulnerable ice may have melted at a quicker rate before the start of the last decade, at least on or about the landmasses. For instance, sea ice or land ice at the ice sheets or glaciers close to the sea. This could leave the more substantial and less vulnerable (possibly) land based ice to melt at a slower rate? Hence the slowing in volume loss over the past decade. I suppose I’m asking if those who have kindly looked at the data on ice volume loss might have also reviewed the reasons postulated and whether this type of idea has been considered (it may not of course, there might be obvious reasons, but I’d be curious to know).

Yes, that's why it's important to look at both sea ice volume and extent. Both have shown a very similar recent flat trend; with extent even marginally upward. For me this says a lot about the effect of other drivers, such as the AMO, which was rapidly going from negative to positive during the start of the time of the quickest ice loss during the 90s. The AMO became positive just before the turn of the century and then levelled off positive since. Both the sea ice and Greenland melt rates also followed similar trends, with a lag of a few years. That would suggest that the warmer Atlantic of the AMO affected the most vulnerable ice first, a lot of which grows in the Fram Strait, between Svalbard and Greenland. Add then the feedback loop of more open waters and it seems to maybe have reached a balance for now. Is the solar minimum playing a part? Maybe?

But multiyear ice has seen a large loss during that time too, with a little over half of it remaining now compared to the 80s. It will be interesting to watch what happens to it over the coming years.

sosndt

The amount of dishonesty on here is disgusting. Almost all posts riddled with lies, half truths, and purposely obtuse statements.

You all deserve each other.

Gaoth Laidir

sosndt wrote: »

All sounds very good until it's becomes clear you are looking at Toronto only there fore you are looking at weather trends not climate.

I think everyone knows that local weather and global climate are different.

The temperature trends in Toronto could be steadily dropping for 200 years it still doesn't debunk IPCC.

Quite disingenuous of you to pretend it does.

The data also included the Central England Temperature (C.E.T.). Still not global, but at least acknowledge its presence if you're going to complain.

Ruhanna

Deleted User wrote: »

Demonstrate or support

Demonstrate or support what exactly?

https://climate.nasa.gov/

https://www.climate.gov/

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/what-is-climate-change

https://www.csiro.au/en/Showcase/state-of-the-climate

https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scientists-accurately-climate.html

Ruhanna

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It is effectively impossible to clearly discern a human influence on climate and the claims made rest on assumptions.

https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Shortwave-vs-Longwave-forcing-2005-2014-uncertainty-Kato-2018.jpg

Nonsense.

Who would have guessed that Boards was a haven for climate science deniers?

PS: while editing this post I've just realised that you are citing the looney right-wing quack Pierre Gosselin.

Pa ElGrande

Ruhanna wrote: »

Nonsense.

Who would have guessed that Boards was a haven for climate science deniers?

PS: while editing this post I've just realised that you are citing the looney right-wing quack Pierre Gosselin.

All you have done is throw labels and failed to support your claim. It is interesting you cannot dispute the science paper in question, thus supporting up my earlier point that people like you only want us to listen to your worldview not the science. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is just a vehicle of convenience for various groups cloaked in a spectrum of green.

Yet people make claims they "believe in the science" by which most people understand as confidence in the ability of the scientific method to achieve valid results, or perhaps a view that the universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning.

However, some people on this forum are using this mantra in a political context in a manner which is the opposite to what is generally understood. They are using it as you have just done as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand.

Belief is a term more often used in the context of religion an therein lies your problem. Science isn’t about 'belief'. It’s about facts, evidence, theories, experiments. You would not say 'I believe in nuclear physics'. You understand its laws and the evidence for them, or you don’t.

If you are going to come at me and others, you could say "I understand the science" on this particular issue and the author of the paper is wrong, partly wrong about some parts, partly right about others, and totally correct on others and you have the basis for constructive criticism or debate. You are trapped by your own beliefs where anyone who disagrees with you whatever the merits of their argument are labelled as "them" and shouted down.

Nabber

I'm pro change. Save the whales, bring back the bees. I still cut the rings on beer can holders

I try to distance myself from posters like Coles. The repetition of AGW catastrophe, the toxic rhetoric from those pushing the message, the 'tribal' nature of climatologists who support AGW theory is a concern to modern science, the likes of which have not been seen since science was influenced predominately by the church.
Climate data is presented to be accepted and not challenged, very much like a religious belief. No other theory is as protective and restricted in such a way. Even fundamentally accepted laws of physics are still challenged and tested today (rightly so).

The consensus on Climate Changes is directed toward policy making and not furthering the study of the theory. The outlandish predictions and ever increasing varieties of doomsday events makes it very difficult to take AGW theorists serious.

As another poster in here has said already, the most alarming impact humans are having is our exploitation of the land and the planets natural resources. Most threatened species are as such because of direct human destruction of their habitat.


Also pitting the argument as Liberal vs Conservative, worst thing to have happened to the cause. One thing is for sure the biggest polluters are manufactures & agriculture and not individuals at home. Wealth protection follows whatever party offers protection, rich liberalists supporters are no different.

The biggest step in my opinion to be made is to have products/services show their overall carbon and water cost. From raw material to final product. Let consumers then decide, change will only be made by consumers. So long as people pay, why would anything change?

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Already done, Zharakova. BSc in physics and Astronomy, PhD in AstroPhysics. Not a climate scientist, but Solar Physicist. Only interested in suns affect on earth. while she explains we get a reprieve for the next 30 years due to Solar min, natural warming is inevitable.

Does she have a paper that was published in a reputable journal that supports her theory

Gaoth Laidir

Ruhanna wrote: »

Nonsense.

Who would have guessed that Boards was a haven for climate science deniers?

PS: while editing this post I've just realised that you are citing the looney right-wing quack Pierre Gosselin.

I'm confused. What has Pierre Gosselin got to do with the link to that journal paper? University of Michigan, hosted on the American Meterological Society journal, no less. Did you even read the paper? Did you even click the link? If so, please let us know why the paper is nonsense.

My suspicion is that you didn't even do any of the above but purely saw the notrickzone url and jumped to the usual conclusions. It's even worse than what a couple other posters are doing (basing their comments on who wrote it rather than what was written). This is akin to trolling.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Does she have a paper that was published in a reputable journal that supports her theory

Is Nature good enough for you?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Coles

Nabber wrote: »

I try to distance myself from posters like Coles. The repetition of AGW catastrophe, the toxic rhetoric from those pushing the message, the 'tribal' nature of climatologists who support AGW theory is a concern to modern science, the likes of which have not been seen since science was influenced predominately by the church.

Have you heard of the IPCC? They've been studying this issue for quite a while now. Every single respected scientific body accepts their findings. If someone on the Boards.ie Weather forum wants to propose an alternative theory it doesn't negate the findings of the IPCC.

"Tribal"? Lol.

Hooter23

I think its funny how they actually label the "climate deniers" as the conspiracy theorists...when they are the ones going around shouting its the end of the world...and even though alot of science is based on theories...

Every generation has been saying its the end.throughout history and I suppose this generation is just as stupid even though everyone thinks they are all intelligent these days with their smartphones:rolleyes:

Wanderer78

Hooter23 wrote:

I think its funny how they actually label the "climate deniers" as the conspiracy theorists...when they are the ones going around shouting its the end of the world...and even though alot of science is based on theories...

I've had an awareness of environmental issues most of my life, and I don't label our current situation as the end of the world, so I dunno

Pa ElGrande

Coles wrote: »

Have you heard of the IPCC? They've been studying this issue for quite a while now. Every single respected scientific body accepts their findings. If someone on the Boards.ie Weather forum wants to propose an alternative theory it doesn't negate the findings of the IPCC.

"Tribal"? Lol.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not experts on climate. They are a committee whose terms of terms of reference are to only report on climate change caused by human activity, other factors that affect climate are excluded for that reason. Your claim that every single scientific body accepts their findings is used by you as an appeal to authority. Be careful you are committing the same mistake as the Catholic church did with Galileo, Galileo was unable to answer all the questions put to him and was wrong on several subjects, he resorted to insulting the Pope and he was silenced by the authority of the day. It was Carl Sagan said "Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else".

Earlier I put a quote from professor Stephen H. Schneider from 1988 in this thread that should give you pause for thought, How do you feel about Dr. Schneiders comments, does it affect your judgement? Is it right to lie because you believe you are morally right?

"We have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

dalyboy

Hooter23 wrote: »

I think its funny how they actually label the "climate deniers" as the conspiracy theorists...when they are the ones going around shouting its the end of the world...and even though alot of science is based on theories...

Every generation has been saying its the end.throughout history and I suppose this generation is just as stupid even though everyone thinks they are all intelligent these days with their smartphones:rolleyes:

This hits the nail on the head hooter. They have hijacked the word “science” for themselves when all their so called proof is hilariously at theory stage.Science method and EVERY step of it needs to be throughly conducted before cause and effect is proved scientifically (if it’s not it’s pseudoscience). They spout on about forecasts and wild conjecture based on zero science and sadly it’s the public’s ignorance on scientific method that leads them to blindly follow this out of control fear mongering rabble.

Ruhanna

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

All you have done is throw labels and failed to support your claim.

The links to various scientific reports are linked above. Plenty more where they came from, all derived from the peer-reviewed literature. You have nothing of validity or relevance to counter any of it. What does that Kato paper allegedly show?

And if you are reduced to relying on the ramblings of an egregious alt-right huckster like Pierre Gosselin, a mechanical engineer and amateur meteorologist addicted to pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, then you have less than nothing.

Plus he's a Trump groupie, which says it all really.

https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/14/trump-sees-through-climate-hoax-mocks-global-warming-wind-energy-sea-level-rise-at-hershey-rally/

Is that the best you can do? Pathetic.

dalyboy wrote: »

This hits the nail on the head hooter. They have hijacked the word “science” for themselves when all their so called proof is hilariously at theory stage.Science method and EVERY step of it needs to be throughly conducted before cause and effect is proved scientifically (if it’s not it’s pseudoscience). They spout on about forecasts and wild conjecture based on zero science and sadly it’s the public’s ignorance on scientific method that leads them to blindly follow this out of control fear mongering rabble.

Yadda yadda. Evidence, please.

Spoiler alert: you won't find any.

dalyboy wrote: »

They believe that science and the new world order are hiding the flat earth “reality” from the masses to ensure people will believe in space/planets/galaxies etc instead of the world being a flat plane (planet). If the masses knew that the world is flat it would point to the obvious question “who built this flat world” thus ensuring a descruction to present day religion paradimes, science as we know it, evolution theories as we know it , mass consumerism as we know it , etc etc.
I have to say their debates on YouTube are fascinating. Check out “Nathan Oakley flat earth debates” for an insight to their beliefs , probably the best one.

What?

Mr Bumble

Akrasia wrote: »

Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram, you could have provided even a single link to some of the ‘other science’ that you find more convincing

Ah, the man who doesnt think he can personally make a difference, that only societal change and big corporate attitudinal change will save the world, not puny individuals. Greta seems to have a different plan. Maybe you don't have her charisma? Just a thought.

I remember you from the other thread. I had a good laugh at that 'do as I say not as I do approach'.

I have no expertise other than common sense. I've already stated that. I'm following what started as a debate, open to being educated.
You just preach and coles just looks down his nose "You can't understand......"

You describe me as an infant.........

As I said, have a nice holiday.

Gaoth Laidir

The IPCC have issued a number of Special Reports in the past year, including this recent one on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, issued in September 2019.

A lot of the points remain consistent with previous reports, however these points (in bold) from the Technical Summary interested me as they seem to show maybe a downgrading of the severity of some outcomes compared to previously. Maybe the recent trends are finally sinking in.

Arctic sea ice extent continues to decline in all months of the year (very high confidence); the strongest reductions in September (very likely –12.8 ± 2.3% per decade; 1979–2018) are unprecedented in at least 1000 years (medium confidence). Arctic sea ice has thinned, concurrent with a shift to younger ice: since 1979, the areal proportion of thick ice at least 5 years old has declined by approximately 90% (very high confidence). Approximately half the observed sea ice loss is attributable to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (medium confidence). Changes in Arctic sea ice have potential to influence mid-latitude weather on timescales of weeks to months (low to medium confidence). {3.2.1.1; Box 3.2}

First point: Still no reference is being made about the recent trend, which is completely flat over the past decade. Strange not to at least mention it.

Second point: Only half of the ice loss is attributable to increased ghg. So what's the other half down to? I thought it was all ghg-related? Hmmm...

It is very likely that Antarctic sea ice cover exhibits no significant trend over the period of satellite observations (1979–2018). While the drivers of historical decadal variability are known with medium confidence, there is currently limited evidence and low agreement concerning causes of the strong recent decrease (2016–2018), and low confidence in the ability of current-generation climate models to reproduce and explain the observations. {3.2.1.1}

So the science in this case is far from settled.

Permafrost temperatures have increased to record high levels (very high confidence), but there is medium evidence and low agreement that this warming is currently causing northern permafrost regions to release additional methane and carbon dioxide. During 2007–2016, continuous-zone permafrost temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic increased by 0.39 ± 0.15°C and 0.37 ± 0.10°C respectively. Arctic and boreal permafrost region soils contain 1460–1600 Gt organic carbon (medium confidence). Changes in permafrost influence global climate through emissions of carbon dioxide and methane released from the microbial breakdown of organic carbon, or the release of trapped methane. {3.4.1, 3.4.3}

Again the previous science behind the effects from melting tundra may not be that settled either. They do, however, still forecast that this will happen by the end of the century below, however it's not clear how plant replenishment will offset the ghg release...

Widespread disappearance of Arctic near-surface permafrost is projected to occur this century as a result of warming (very high confidence), with important consequences for global climate. By 2100, near-surface permafrost area will decrease by 2–66% for RCP2.6 and 30–99% for RCP8.5. This is projected to release 10s to 100s of billions of tons (Gt C), up to as much as 240 Gt C, of permafrost carbon as carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere with the potential to accelerate climate change. Methane will contribute a small proportion of these additional carbon emissions, on the order of 0.01–0.06 Gt CH4 yr-1, but could contribute 40–70% of the total permafrost-affected radiative forcing because of its higher warming potential. There is medium evidence but with low agreement whether the level and timing of increased plant growth and replenishment of soil will compensate these permafrost carbon losses. {3.4.2, 3.4.3}

It is very likely that projected Arctic warming will result in continued loss of sea ice and snow on land, and reductions in the mass of glaciers. Important differences in the trajectories of loss emerge from 2050 onwards, depending on mitigation measures taken (high confidence). For stabilised global warming of 1.5°C, an approximately 1% chance of a given September being sea ice free at the end of century is projected; for stabilised warming at a 2°C increase, this rises to 10–35% (high confidence). The potential for reduced (further 5–10%) but stabilised Arctic autumn and spring snow extent by mid-century for Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)2.6 contrasts with continued loss under RCP8.5 (a further 15–25% reduction to end of century) (high confidence). Projected mass reductions for polar glaciers between 2015 and 2100 range from 16 ± 7% for RCP2.6 to 33 ± 11% for RCP8.5 (medium confidence).{3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.4.2, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 2}

That's a far cry from the previous fears of an ice-free September being probable in the next decade or two. Now it's a low probability within the next 8 decades.

Responding to climate change in polar regions will be more effective if attention to reducing immediate risks (short-term adaptation) is concurrent with long-term planning that builds resilience to address expected and unexpected impacts (high confidence). Emphasis on short-term adaptation to specific problems will ultimately not succeed in reducing the risks and vulnerabilities to society given the scale, complexity and uncertainty of climate change. Moving toward a dual focus of short- and long-term adaptation involves knowledge co-production, linking knowledge with decision making and implementing ecosystem-based stewardship, which involves the transformation of many existing institutions (high confidence). {3.5.4}

Innovative tools and practices in polar resource management and planning show strong potential in improving society’s capacity to respond to climate change (high confidence). Networks of protected areas, participatory scenario analysis, decision support systems, community-based ecological monitoring that draws on local and indigenous knowledge, and self assessments of community resilience contribute to strategic plans for sustaining biodiversity and limit risk to human livelihoods and wellbeing. Such practices are most effective when linked closely to the policy process. Experimenting, assessing, and continually refining practices while strengthening the links with decision making has the potential to ready society for the expected and unexpected impacts of climate change (high confidence). {3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.4}

This seems to be very closely aligned with what MT has been saying in this thread.

ZX7R

gaoth laidir
they probably only focus on what hasent changed :rolleyes:

dalyboy

Ruhanna wrote: »

Yadda yadda. Evidence, please.

Spoiler alert: you won't find any.


Haha haha . Clown reply. Supply you of Evidence of what? The burden of proof is on you not me.
All you supplied is theory , conjecture, alarmism and the essence of pseudoscience (google that last word. ..... hey it’s your area of expertise) you have nothing on your side that is vaguely science related. Now go back and read some historical weather reports and declare a position of future doom for the planet you oh wise “scientific professor” you.

Akrasia

A new paper has analyzed the climate models since the 70s and compared their results with observed warming and the findings are that they have performed remarkably well

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers. This research should help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts, and increases our confidence that models are accurately projecting global warming.

M.T. Cranium

Anyone interested in actual data from the Canadian arctic over the past 70 years or so (sadly that's all we have, some anecdotal reports from earlier) could find most of what they seek in this file. There is a discussion thread on this one over on Netweather with a few additional pieces of information. I took some care a few years ago not to wrap this study with any sort of theme, it's just the facts and make of them what you will. I have very recently added in the latest information available.

The study looks at key climate indicators from two sites with longish periods of record, Cambridge Bay on the south coast of Victoria Island (western arctic) and Resolute on Cornwallis Island (central arctic).

Here are links to the file, which has a guide to what's contained in it around the top left portion of the excel domain, and also to the Net-weather thread.

https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/87367-climate-change-study-at-cambridge-bay-and-resolute-nu-canada-1940-to-2019/page/2/#comments

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Is Nature good enough for you?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Thank you. It’s an interesting paper and if she is right, then it makes our predicament worse although there are other factors that affect the solar irradiance other than the suns raw output (variation in the earths orbit and wobbles in its axial rotation for example)

In terms of the currently observed warming, the low solar output today should be causing slight cooling and therefore the point I made before about human influence likely being greater than 100% of observed warming has been reinforced

Akrasia

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I've had an awareness of environmental issues most of my life, and I don't label our current situation as the end of the world, so I dunno

The world will not end but we could cause changes to global ecosystems that happen far too quickly for nature to adapt causing many of these diverse ecosystems to collapse. The world won’t end but it could look very different within a generation or two if we’re not careful

Is there anything precious about our pale blue dot that is worth fighting for?

youreadthat

Can anyone give a list of places in the last 100 years where climate change has actually changed the climate? I’m talking about actual change, Oceanic to Mediterranean, Polar to Tundra. Must be backed up with stats, not a farmer moaning.

Akrasia

Mr Bumble wrote: »

Ah, the man who doesnt think he can personally make a difference, that only societal change and big corporate attitudinal change will save the world, not puny individuals. Greta seems to have a different plan. Maybe you don't have her charisma? Just a thought.

I remember you from the other thread. I had a good laugh at that 'do as I say not as I do approach'.

I have no expertise other than common sense. I've already stated that. I'm following what started as a debate, open to being educated.
You just preach and coles just looks down his nose "You can't understand......"

You describe me as an infant.........

As I said, have a nice holiday.

Greta is calling for political action. So am I. You can give up driving and only eat the carrots you grow yourself and it won’t make a difference if investment and regulations don’t change

This is why I come onto these threads to argue against climate change denial.

All political parties need to have a green agenda and policies to tackle climate change and all voters should let their representatives know that they agree with the science and accept the need to act and will support them when they make the required changes to tackle climate change

Thargor

Hooter23 wrote: »

I think its funny how they actually label the "climate deniers" as the conspiracy theorists...when they are the ones going around shouting its the end of the world...and even though alot of science is based on theories...

Every generation has been saying its the end.throughout history and I suppose this generation is just as stupid even though everyone thinks they are all intelligent these days with their smartphones:rolleyes:

Hurrr durrr gravity is just a theory you know, and don't even get me started on those young people with their smartphones!

Coles

"You call for a reduction in emissions and yet you continue to breath out CO2?"