Arctic Sea Ice Watch

Jesus wept.

So 2010 was the only time there was a drought in Syria. There must not have been droughts prior to this because this crisis didn't happen before then.

Where's the evidence that the 2010 drought - in an arid area of the world, I might add - was caused by climate change?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

And a counter argument to this claim:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12022872/Drought-did-not-cause-the-Syria-terror-crisis.html

Christopher Booker is a climate change denier (he wrote the book on it in 2009) and a conspiracy theorist and a professional contrarian not unlike Kevin Myers so he's gonna say that anyway, and his whole argument misses the point that the Syrian conflict wasn't caused by climate change, that the drought wasn't really a proper drought.
The Syria uprising happened in 2011, throughout 2010 there are many reports of devastating crop failures and livestock losses due to drought in Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/middleeast/14syria.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1330449407-yAiPXrD1kQsKbG2Bb5A61A&pagewanted=1 Booker's claims that things were normal in Syria before the uprising are simply wrong.

There were of course underlying political and economic and social conditions and there is never one single cause for why any political event occors, but climate change made the underlying conditions worse.

There are very few conceivable instances where severe drought, famine and heatwaves can make social, political and economic conditions better.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Because science. Your use of the term climate science is just an appeal to authority and it is clear from the hyperbole you generated throughout this thread that you lack sufficient grasp of the scientific disciplines or research involved in studying a complex system like climate. Yet that does not stop you preaching absolute certainty where it does not exist.

When does the truth become hyperbole?

If you have lymphatic cancer and your oncologist tells you that it is 95% likely to metastasize if untreated and that the likely symptoms are extreme pain, loss of bodily function and a painful death. Would you consider this hyperbole just because the prognosis is severe? I am not an alarmist. The people who know the most about the science are the ones who are most fearful of the consequences of global warming.

There are lots of climate scientists who think that even the IPCC's predictions of the consequences of global warming are overly optimistic and that dangerous climate change will occur at well below 2 degrees warming, (eg james hansen https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016-discussion.html )
but I am sticking to the findings of the IPCC because I want to use the best available evidence to support my position. Those who disagree with the IPCC and think it'll all be grand are the ones who are being imprudent and anti scientific

Forgive me for sounding as though the science is settled, Science is never absolutely certain, it's about probability and confidence, but the IPCC have put it at 95% confidence that global warming is real and that the causes are carbon emissions. The best science that we have show the different scenarios for our carbon emissions. Business as usual will very likely result in temperature increases in excess of 4 degrees C before 2100. (but even if the 2100 date is too soon, that's a irrelevant if the actual date is 2120 or 2150, the long term effects are basically the same)

You can call me an alarmist or pretend that you're being prudent by not accepting the best available science, but in fact, the prudent thing to do is act in the face of a very likely existential threat.

If I told you that statistically there is a 30% chance that your make and model of car will spontaneously catch fire and explode while you are driving it due to faulty wiring, you could take the risk that it won't happen, but you'd be a fool to not get it fixed.

Anyway, back to the actual Arctic Sea Ice topic, I think no one can deny that it is looking pretty bleak up there at the moment regarding extent. Line represents the daily average extent for the time of year, the white shows just how far the current extent is from that average:

Akrasia wrote: »

It is widely accepted that the syrian conflict was at the very least exacerbated due to the drought and food shortages that displaced many people brought people onto the streets demanding action.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html

And a counter argument to this claim:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12022872/Drought-did-not-cause-the-Syria-terror-crisis.html

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

There is nothing dogmatic about climate science. A true rational skeptic would identify it correctly, as the greatest challenge facing our species in recorded history.

It is a force multiplier. It is a huge problem on it's own, but it also makes almost every other pre-existing problem worse.

Because science. Your use of the term climate science is just an appeal to authority and it is clear from the hyperbole you generated throughout this thread that you lack sufficient grasp of the scientific disciplines or research involved in studying a complex system like climate. Yet that does not stop you preaching absolute certainty where it does not exist.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You'll have to explain this a bit more, because on the face of it, you are suggesting that current world problems are worse than they would because of climate change. This is a very flippant comment. Perhaps you would even go so far as to suggest that if climate change was a big factor back in the mid-1930s, we would have seen an even bigger percentage of the world's population being slaughtered in the years afterwards?

We all know that climate change in itself is a problem that we need to sort out, but to claim that it is the 'biggest threat to our species in recorded history' is as naive as it is untrue, and really just validates the very point that O'Neill was making about climate change being a substitute religion for those who don't hold one.

If we manage to limit global warming to below 1.5 to 2 degrees, then it will seem like hyperbole to suggest that global warming is an existential threat to humanity, but we will only succeed in limiting global warming if we acknowledge that inaction will result in temperature rises in far in excess of that with catastrophic consequences.

It's like telling someone if they don't fix the dodgy wiring in their house, it will burn down, and then someone coming back after fixing the wiring and saying 'you were so alarmist, my house didn't burn down at all. If we take action, it will look like a false alarm, if we don't take action, it will be too late to do anything and we'll be making excuses for why we didn't act sooner.

It's not just me, The UN, The Pentagon and NATO consider Global warming to be the biggest threat multiplier facing the world.

If a region is already facing political instability, the impacts of climate change are adding on additional pressures that can either push a potential crisis over the edge, or make an existing crisis worse.

There are 7 key areas where climate change makes existing problems worse on a geo-political scale

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/climate-change-poses-increasing-risks-to-global-stability/
1. Local resource competition

Competition for access to essential natural resources such as water and arable land, which will be constrained in some regions due to climate change, can lead to instability and even violent conflict. Particularly regions dependent on a narrow resource base, with a history of conflict, or home to marginalized groups are likely to have disruptive competition for resources.

2. Livelihood insecurity and migration

The increased insecurity of people who rely on natural resources for their livelihood is likely to induce climate related migration. Climate change will reduce grazing land, dry up water sources, and threaten jobs connected to climate-sensitive economic sectors, which could also push people to turn to illegal sources of income.

3. Extreme weather events and disasters

Climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as heatwaves, flooding, droughts and storms. Extreme weather events and disasters will exacerbate fragility challenges and can increase people’s vulnerability and grievances, especially in conflict-affected situations.

4. Volatile food prices and provision

The impacts of climate change are expected to decrease yields and disrupt food production in many areas, increasing prices of food and market volatility. As a result, risks of public unrest, democratic breakdown and civil and local conflict will likely be heightened, particularly in poorer regions.

5. Transboundary water management

Competition over water use is likely to increase the pressure on governance structure where the management of water supplies is shared. Several transboundary water basins are located in regions with a history of armed conflict and significant interstate tensions.

6. Sea-level rise and coastal degradation

Rising sea levels are threats to the economic and physical viability of low-lying areas, as land and coastal resources are gradually lost. This can lead to social disruption, displacement and migration, as well as disagreements over maritime boundaries and ocean resources.

7. Unintended effects of climate policies

Unintended consequences from climate adaptation and mitigation policies may occur if they are implemented without enough cross-sectoral coordination or due to the lack of conflict-sensitive implementation. Possible unintended consequences include increased insecurity of land tenure, marginalization of minority groups, increased environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity.

It is widely accepted that the syrian conflict was at the very least exacerbated due to the drought and food shortages that displaced many people brought people onto the streets demanding action.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

These 'generalisations' are more than valid though.
Are fossil fuels really as 'obsolete' as you make out? because If so called 'renewable energy' was in anyway effective, it would have taken over from more traditional forms of energy by now.

They're obsolete because there is better technology that can do the same thing at a much reduced cost economically, environmentally and medically (pollution from fossil fuels kills millions of people a year)
Look at the tables on this report
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

If the full cost of fossil fuels was actually paid, instead of externalised and subsidised, then we would begun the process of transitioning to renewable energy decades ago.

Solar panel prices have been dropping as more investment has been flowing into the sector which have reduced production costs, improved efficiency and made solar installations much more economically attractive.

Its a similar story with wind power. The cost per KWH has fallen by a factor of 3, from in the last 30 years and installed capacity is growing rapidly. while installation costs have increased as the world commodity prices increased and manufacturing costs increased, the improvements in efficiency per turbine mean that the costs per MWH are continuing to decrease and the IEA estimate that they will continue to fall by up to 40% further by 2030 (although there is a range of confidence so the decreases are likely to be lower than this)(based on their 2012 report) https://www.ieawind.org/index_page_postings/WP2_task26.pdf

Another technology in renewable energy is biomass. Currently this is mostly burning wood or generating ethanol from crops, but these are more and more looking like they're not viable economcally or environmentally.
That said, as a transitional technology, burning wood pellets is better than burning coal if it comes from a sustainable source, but in the medium term, we should be getting the vast majority of our energy from the wind, the sun, and from nuclear power.

In places where solar power is especially abundant, we could create huge solar farms and store the energy as hydrogen or some other medium for export to places where renewable energy is not as abundant

Someone mentioned energy density as a critical factor. This is true, petrol is hugely energy dense, and is our most energy dense fuel (outside of rocketry applications) But the other side of the coin is energy efficiency, and internal combustion engines are less than 22% efficient (the rest of the energy is wasted). For aerospace, energy density really matters because of power to weight ratio and because jet engines are more efficient than internal combustion engines with some achieving maximum efficiency of 46%, but outside of this, most of our fuel needs can be achieved using renewable or carbon neutral technology.

Modern electric engines are 80-90% efficient and are also compatible with other technology like kinetic energy recovery. Burning coal to make electricity is not efficient, but collecting solar power and converting it into hydrogen for use in fuel cells or even transmitting the power directly is still much more efficient than coal gas or oil.
(especially when the costs of extracting the fuel from the ground are included)

The reason renewable energy is lagging behind fossil fuels, imo, is because of inertia. Fossil fuel industries are already established, they already have infrastructure, and there are already politically well connected people who are lobbying to ensure that governments protect their investment. To build a national infrastructure takes a long time and a lot of confidence to take a gamble that the standard you invest in will be the standard that ends up being adopted as well as the most important factor, the full cost of the fossil fuels are not accounted for in the price we pay. The vast majority of the cost of burning fossil fuels are deferred and will be paid by future generations if we don't transition ASAP to renewable and carbon neutral technology

Akrasia wrote: »

It is a force multiplier. It is a huge problem on it's own, but it also makes almost every other pre-existing problem worse.

You'll have to explain this a bit more, because on the face of it, you are suggesting that current world problems are worse than they would because of climate change. This is a very flippant comment. Perhaps you would even go so far as to suggest that if climate change was a big factor back in the mid-1930s, we would have seen an even bigger percentage of the world's population being slaughtered in the years afterwards?

We all know that climate change in itself is a problem that we need to sort out, but to claim that it is the 'biggest threat to our species in recorded history' is as naive as it is untrue, and really just validates the very point that O'Neill was making about climate change being a substitute religion for those who don't hold one.

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a polemic that makes a lot of generalisations. Anti GMO activists are nothing to do with climate change activists.

Most of the people who argue that we need to tackle climate change are not anti modern technology, in fact, it's the opposite, we are anti 18th century technology. Burning fossil fuels is an obsolete technology, we need to move towards renewable energy, and we will eventually, but the climate crisis means we can't wait until the 'free market' does it on it's own, we need governments to do two things.

1. Stop propping up coal oil and gas industries with huge subsidies and tax breaks that the OECD estimate amount to about $180Bn a year
http://www.oecd.org/environment/support-to-fossil-fuels-remains-high-and-the-time-is-ripe-for-change.htm

2. Start government funded investment programs to fund the rapid transition to clean technology, grants for households to move to renewable energy to power and heat their homes and transport.

3. Regulations that make it prohibitively expensive for polluting industries to operate, and tax breaks for them to find technological solutions that allow them to operate with much lower environmental impact.

Which part of these is 'anti humanist'?

These 'generalisations' are more than valid though.
Are fossil fuels really as 'obsolete' as you make out? because If so called 'renewable energy' was in anyway effective, it would have taken over from more traditional forms of energy by now.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

All of them. Note the first line "Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition."

There is nothing dogmatic about climate science. A true rational skeptic would identify it correctly, as the greatest challenge facing our species in recorded history.

It is a force multiplier. It is a huge problem on it's own, but it also makes almost every other pre-existing problem worse.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year
5 trillion a year in fossil fuel subsidies a year. That's 6.5% of global productivity

it's madness. If the fossil fuels weren't subsidised so much, modern renewable energy would be much more competitive than it is right now.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

Most of the people who argue that we need to tackle climate change are not anti modern technology, in fact, it's the opposite, we are anti 18th century technology. Burning fossil fuels is an obsolete technology, we need to move towards renewable energy, and we will eventually, but the climate crisis means we can't wait until the 'free market' does it on it's own, we need governments to do two things.

Technically the 18th century ran from January 1, 1701 to December 31, 1800 there were no hydro, oil, gas, coal or nuclear plants then. Hydro-electric power did not become a reality in Ireland until the 20th century and we use nuclear power via the interconnect with the UK grid and the finished products we consume made by companies that use energy produced by nuclear power. During that time period the primary energy source for people in Ireland and across much of Europe at the time for cooking and heating was wood, not coal. Europe of the 18th century was mostly an agrarian society and most people were only one bad harvest away from starvation, in fact there were several famines and severe weather catastrophes during this time period that killed people en-masse, for reference see the Irish Famine (1740–41). Today burning wood has been classed as renewable energy and the proposed wood burning station in the then Taoiseachs constituency was put into liquidation last year. There is a big question over whether shipping wood pellets from the American continent to Europe is a valid source of green energy.

A free market is just a voluntary exchange of property rights. During the 18th century most of the English crowns subjects in Ireland had extremely limited property rights. In fact the same was true across much of Europe, the combination of bad weather, high taxation and poor economic governance, the role of special interest groups and lack of property rights all contributed to the French revolution. If you are interested in the concept of free markets you my want to read up on Richard Cantillon and read his Essay on the Nature of Trade in General you may also read Edmund Burkes Reflections on the Revolution in France all from the 18th century. Historically those states that have protected and extended their citizens property rights have had the greatest improvement in their standard of living while those who have adopted the socialist model have done much less well. You will not be surprised to learn that environmental degradation was much greater on the other side of the iron curtain.

I have a question, why do you advocate the return to 18th century energy sources that lack the energy density to power the electrical energy future that you presumably see?

Akrasia wrote: »

1. Stop propping up coal oil and gas industries with huge subsidies and tax breaks that the OECD estimate amount to about $180Bn a year
http://www.oecd.org/environment/support-to-fossil-fuels-remains-high-and-the-time-is-ripe-for-change.htm

The number of coal plants that have been built and are being commissioned has increased worldwide, in part due to the the focus on climate change but also the necessity to support a growing population and improve their standard of living, these new high efficiency low emission coal plants are designated as green energy and being funded under the climate change moniker.

Akrasia wrote: »

2. Start government funded investment programs to fund the rapid transition to clean technology, grants for households to move to renewable energy to power and heat their homes and transport.

You will be aware of the debt overhang that the Irish state and many other welfare states across the world currently carry and it is likely that many states will default on their bonds in the next few years. You may also be aware you live in the northern hemisphere and depend on cheap energy to survive cold northern winters and that increasing the price of energy transfers wealth from those who cannot afford the luxury of inefficient renewable energy producing schemes to much wealthier people. Your assumption that you can tap into unlimited resources is incorrect, the bursting of the bond bubble is going to cause chaos and will be the final death knell of climate change as a political tool for a few generations.

Akrasia wrote: »

3. Regulations that make it prohibitively expensive for polluting industries to operate, and tax breaks for them to find technological solutions that allow them to operate with much lower environmental impact.

The specification inflation in Government regulations has contributed in no small part to the increase in building costs of essential shelter and tax breaks have also contributed to increasing margins of the operators benefiting from the subsidy without reducing prices for the end consumer. Maybe the government can raise taxes to fund a technological solution to the problem of incoming tides.

Akrasia wrote: »

Which part of these is 'anti humanist'?

All of them. Note the first line "Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition."

It's a polemic that makes a lot of generalisations. Anti GMO activists are nothing to do with climate change activists.

Most of the people who argue that we need to tackle climate change are not anti modern technology, in fact, it's the opposite, we are anti 18th century technology. Burning fossil fuels is an obsolete technology, we need to move towards renewable energy, and we will eventually, but the climate crisis means we can't wait until the 'free market' does it on it's own, we need governments to do two things.

1. Stop propping up coal oil and gas industries with huge subsidies and tax breaks that the OECD estimate amount to about $180Bn a year
http://www.oecd.org/environment/support-to-fossil-fuels-remains-high-and-the-time-is-ripe-for-change.htm

2. Start government funded investment programs to fund the rapid transition to clean technology, grants for households to move to renewable energy to power and heat their homes and transport.

3. Regulations that make it prohibitively expensive for polluting industries to operate, and tax breaks for them to find technological solutions that allow them to operate with much lower environmental impact.

Which part of these is 'anti humanist'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svbHVk0JdrA

Good political commentary here regarding the concept of 'climate change' and how it is being used as means to push forward an 'anti-humanist' ideology.

O'Neil makes the excellent point in that those who are the most vociferous about the dangers of climate change, are usually the very ones who are benefiting the most from the very societies that contribute most to it, hinting at their blatant lack of self-awareness.

"Anti-capitalism has become not so much radical, but an expression of a privileged narcissism amongst many in the west".

Quite.

That's for June, but if you look at the most recent data for July you'll see it's caught up with the other years. Not quite as dramatic picture but still below where we would like it to be.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/07/piomas-july-2017.html#more

Last month we finally received some good news from PIOMAS, and the good news continues this month. With 2017 losing a below average amount of sea ice volume during June (compared to the average of the last 10 years), and a couple of years losing a great deal of volume, such as 2010, 2011 and of course, record smasher 2012, the gap has effectively been closed. At the end of May the difference between 2012 and 2017 was 1481 km3 (a month earlier it was 2412 km3 even), and now it's just 131 km3.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/06/piomas-june-2017.html

And Arctic Ice Volume is running well below 2012 levels and more than 2 standard deviations below the 1979-2016 average
6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb09a1ef98970d-800wi

6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb09a1ef98970d-800wi

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/06/piomas-june-2017.html

And Arctic Ice Volume is running well below 2012 levels
6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb09a1ef98970d-800wi

Meanwhile Arctic ice extent is running at or just above the 2012 level.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yet you are there with links to other papers and YouTube videos that support your theory when it suits you. You have selective aptitude, it seems.

Selective aptitude? I have been the one saying we need to take the preponderance of evidence and pointed out that there are 24000 climate change papers published this year alone

I am selective in the papers and 'youtube videos' (a lecture to the royal society by a respected expert in his field) because it's important to choose good sources for your arguments. When Bates chose to refer to Willie Soon and the connollys in his letter to the Irish Farmers Journal it shows that he is not as careful as I am or else he doesn't care that these people are not credible researchers.

It would be like your doctor telling you not to take a vaccine because of something Andrew Wakefield published.

1947 was the record 60 years ago. It was almost half a degree warmer than pre industrial levels. On an underlying warming trend it's no surprise that recent years will be warmer again.

The 'underlying warming trend may actually have been an underlying cooling trend over the last 60 years
The IPCC said that
"The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C."
So all the warming since at least the 1950s has been very likely (95% confidence) caused by humans.

You might think I'm alarmist. The truth is alarming

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, there you go with your lies. I never said that he's the only one to be listened to. It's pathetic how you try to gain traction by making stuff up about people. I've already said I try to read as many papers as I can and I've been to a lot more lectures than just his.

I'm done taking to you.

Get off your high horse. For the last 3 weeks you've been calling me hysterical and suggesting i get all my information from the daily express.

You have been consistently taking the skeptical position on global warming but act offended when referred to as a skeptic. You refuse to acknowledge the warning signs when Bates chooses to cite very dodgy research to support his claims.

Not all published research is equal. You call me alarmist and over the top but you think a 1 degree Celsius warming in a hundred or so years is reasonable and we shouldn't be overly concerned about it?

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that greenhouses gasses are warming our planet to a dangerous new state and if we don't treat it as a crisis we could well sleep walk into oblivion

Akrasia wrote: »

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Why should it be debunked? Did you find something wrong with the science or is it just because of the author? Is that really how you operate?

You're the one who saw one lecture by a meteorologist and concluded that he's the only scientist who deserves to be listened to. What about the 24000 other papers published this year?

Again, there you go with your lies. I never said that he's the only one to be listened to. It's pathetic how you try to gain traction by making stuff up about people. I've already said I try to read as many papers as I can and I've been to a lot more lectures than just his.

I'm done taking to you.

Akrasia wrote: »

Plausible is a long way away from your position that we need to be more skeptical about the established science. A plausible effect might exist, but to demonstrate that it is a driver of climate to any significant degree takes a lot more research.

Firstly, stop saying I'm a skeptic. I said no such thing about the established science. All I said was that this knowledge is constantly being refined and in some cases superseded. Your constant hyperbole and "skeptic" and "paid shill" name calling makes you look like one of those riculous chemtrail conspiracy theorists.

Secondly, plausible is one step. You're right, a lot more research is needed to prove it true. Research is continuing. Some said it's rubbish, more recent suggests not so. You threw it out the window in your rant on Lindzen yesterday. That, like the Bates lobby group thing, backfired on you.

I'm not qualified to assess the paper, unless you're a climatologist, you're not either, at least i am not pretending to have expertise that I don't have.

Yet you are there with links to other papers and YouTube videos that support your theory when it suits you. You have selective aptitude, it seems.

The RCP 8.5 refers to the business as usual scenario. It is not alarmist when the republican party in the US are dragging oil production back up to where were were before the crash.
And to look at whats actually happening, 2016 was the hottest year on record at over 1 degree c above pre-20th century levels.
remember, our goal is to cut the temp increases to below 1.5 degrees. 2016 is already 2/3 of the way there.

1947 was the record 60 years ago. It was almost half a degree warmer than pre industrial levels. On an underlying warming trend it's no surprise that recent years will be warmer again.

Before you say el nino caused the temp increase, el ninos have been happening all along, the difference is global warming.

If it's all the same to you I am going to say it. 2015-16 was an El Niño spike similar to that of 1997. Since 1997 there was no net warming for about 13 years due to global dimming. With the latest El Niño gone it will be interesting to see how '17 and '18 work out.

The recent observations on that graph are 6 years old now. Stick in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and see where the trend line is going.

Yep, as I said, there's nothing to say that the observations won't recover, though a strong El Niño spike in there won't buck the trend that much longer term.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Why should it be debunked? Did you find something wrong with the science or is it just because of the author? Is that really how you operate?

You're the one who saw one lecture by a meteorologist and concluded that he's the only scientist who deserves to be listened to. What about the 24000 other papers published this year?

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes, plausible. That's quite different to what you were saying yesterday.

Plausible is a long way away from your position that we need to be more skeptical about the established science. A plausible effect might exist, but to demonstrate that it is a driver of climate to any significant degree takes a lot more research.

And then there is the now infamous Bates paper that goes further into the subject and finds that a two-zone model may better deal with the globe as a whole when it comes to sensitivity, but you didn't understand that paper, so...

I'm not qualified to assess the paper, unless you're a climatologist, you're not either, at least i am not pretending to have expertise that I don't have.

Whatever. The model warming predictions of the various RPCs show varying results by 2100. You like to always quote the very top of the RCP 8.5 range and liken it to a war refugee crisis. Others will look at it more rationally and see what's actually happening.

The RCP 8.5 refers to the business as usual scenario. It is not alarmist when the republican party in the US are dragging oil production back up to where were were before the crash.
And to look at whats actually happening, 2016 was the hottest year on record at over 1 degree c above pre-20th century levels.

remember, our goal is to cut the temp increases to below 1.5 degrees. 2016 is already 2/3 of the way there.

Before you say el nino caused the temp increase, el ninos have been happening all along, the difference is global warming.

I refer you back to this image I posted weeks ago. It shows the last couple of decades of observations compared to the RCP 4.5 of AR5. The recent observations are struggling to keep up with the bottom members of the 4.5 range. Now there's nothing to say that they won't recover, but my point is that the recent flat warming, due to solar dimming, has set the curve back a decade or two from the forecast. So come 2100, the +4.5 W/m^2 forcing of that RCP - and the corresponding warming effects - may not fully materialise because these forecasts do not allow for flattening such as we've recently seen. It may be that the 4.5 curve (and the others too) need to be revised downwards to allow for the possibility of future similar flattening periods.

The recent observations on that graph are 6 years old now. Stick in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and see where the trend line is going.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'll remind you that I'm the one saying we should accept the IPCC reports as the best available review of the evidence rather than focusing on one paper by one contrarian. (and it's literally just the one paper given that Gaoth Ladir accepts that Bates' previous paper on the same topic was severely flawed, but because nobody has gotten around to debunking the latest version, it must be accurate?)

Why should it be debunked? Did you find something wrong with the science or is it just because of the author? Is that really how you operate?

I'll remind you that I'm the one saying we should accept the IPCC reports as the best available review of the evidence rather than focusing on one paper by one contrarian. (and it's literally just the one paper given that Gaoth Ladir accepts that Bates' previous paper on the same topic was severely flawed, but because nobody has gotten around to debunking the latest version, it must be accurate?)

Rikand

Akrasia kinda reminds me of Milhouse in this scene of the Simpsons. Hes completely unqualified to talk about what hes talking about, but he's taken advice from different places and come up with.....

Akrasia wrote: »

The original lindzen hypothesis was never proven, and it's still not proven, all these latest papers show are that it may be plausible

Yes, plausible. That's quite different to what you were saying yesterday.

Regarding Bates, I remember reading somewhere that he was employed by a farming lobbying group. I can't find that reference now, so maybe I got my wires crossed on that one.

Ah, so you just threw that allegation out there weeks ago, but after ignoring repeated requests for evidence of it you now finally say you can't find it and maybe you were wrong. Now I see why you ignored my requests.

There is an excellent lecture delivered to the Royal society by Prof Tim Palmer, research professor at Oxford, that you might be interested in. He talks about climate sensitivity from about 40 minutes in and he discusses the observed sensitivity versus the modeled sensitivity, and explains why observed temperature increases lag the modeled sensitivity, because the sensitivity is temperature dependent, as temperature increases, feedbacks that aren't important early on, become more impactful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXNaNXwWvmk&t=2292s

And then there is the now infamous Bates paper that goes further into the subject and finds that a two-zone model may better deal with the globe as a whole when it comes to sensitivity, but you didn't understand that paper, so...

Whatever. The model warming predictions of the various RPCs show varying results by 2100. You like to always quote the very top of the RCP 8.5 range and liken it to a war refugee crisis. Others will look at it more rationally and see what's actually happening. I refer you back to this image I posted weeks ago. It shows the last couple of decades of observations compared to the RCP 4.5 of AR5. The recent observations are struggling to keep up with the bottom members of the 4.5 range. Now there's nothing to say that they won't recover, but my point is that the recent flat warming, due to solar dimming, has set the curve back a decade or two from the forecast. So come 2100, the +4.5 W/m^2 forcing of that RCP - and the corresponding warming effects - may not fully materialise because these forecasts do not allow for flattening such as we've recently seen. It may be that the 4.5 curve (and the others too) need to be revised downwards to allow for the possibility of future similar flattening periods.