piuswal wrote: » I've only just come on this thread and read the last post by M T Cranium, so I have a lot to catch up on. In the meantime could I ask on what evidence is the statement, "But it seems odd, don't you think, that so many weather enthusiasts are skeptics." based?
dense wrote: » Not much to be honest. Here's why: The title mentions 97% of climate scientists. It shouldn't mean anything to anyone actually, because no one has ever surveyed 100% of climate scientists. Therefore no one can claim to have elicited the opinion of 97% of them. If one accepts the above, and one must, one must then also reject the "9 out of ten cats prefer Whiskas" type false construct of "97% of climate scientists" which is deliberately designed to appeal to those who lack the ability to critically analyse such porous claims. I'll just leave this here:
gabeeg wrote: » See, I happen to think that accuracy is important to Nasa. But then I also believe in the moon landings. It was likely my omission. Sorry.
piuswal wrote: » What do you think of this;https://www.facebook.com/climatecentral/videos/1551677264919326/?hc_ref=ARSN12y6j75LrYbuSE6ZOlHEx3R_SIQfBKGRpRFfbJxJU6oCI-5dN9EvEBQKVDgKoP4
gabeeg wrote: » Well you'll be delighted to hear that those mad fools at NASA have declared 2017 the second hottest year ever, after 2016. But sure what have NASA ever done? Bunch of jokers
Akrasia wrote: » All the talk of global temperatures not rising completely ignored the rise in ocean heat content, and as you yourself say below, warmer water can hold less co2 so rising ocean temperatures now could just be a stop gap before we see a large increase in the rate of atmospheric warming.
“Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” he said, adding that advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements, allowing scientists to use this technique to track the current warming trend in the world’s oceans.
NEWS | OCTOBER 6, 2014 NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
Update as of 5/30/07: Recent analyses have revealed that results from some of the ocean float and shipboard sensor data used in this study were incorrect.As a result, the study's conclusion that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2005 can not be substantiated at this time. The study authors are currently working to correct* these data errors and recompute ocean temperature changes.
This accrued heat is "really the memory of past climate change," said Kevin Trenberth, the head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and co-author of a new paper on ocean warming.
M.T. Cranium wrote: » The word "disingenuous" implies a deliberate distortion of facts. I am not the one doing that. I am quite sure that the 97-3 ratio is contrived and based on poorly worded survey questions combined with peer pressure.
Roger_007 wrote: » I am no expert on climate but I often worry about the claims that 97% of climate scientists are of one mind on the subject. Some of these people have made silly predictions in the past which have proved very wide of the mark. Example: article published in 2007, which made big headlines at the time, predicting that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm There was also the prime minister of the Maldives who made a speech to the UN in 2012 that he had been advised by his climate experts that the Maldives would be under water in 5 years, i.e. 2017. None of the above predictions came to pass but I assume those scaremongers responsible for those predictions are part of the 97%. This is what worries me.
Akrasia wrote: » It is known, but widely overlooked when the vast majority of people refer almost exclusively to atmospheric heat content and talk of the 'pause' and 'hiatus' demonstrate this well. All the talk of global temperatures not rising completely ignored the rise in ocean heat content, and as you yourself say below, warmer water can hold less co2 so rising ocean temperatures now could just be a stop gap before we see a large increase in the rate of atmospheric warming. Again, at this point, the RCP 4.5 scenario is barely distinguishable from RCP 8.5, they start to diverge in the middle of the next decade so your claims that we're on track for an optimistic outcome is a bit disingenuous.
And regarding the accuracy of the models, there have always been uncertainties so the models are never expected to be 100% accurate, but when the various models are analysed carefully with observed measurements of both land and ocean heat content, they have proven to be pretty accurate over all. The observed temperature increases have been slightly lower than the predictions in AR5 but the differences can be accounted for by elements that were not modeled like the declining solar output and a number of small volcanic eruptions.
There are lots of potential positive feedbacks that are not included in the climate models at all, and there is cause for concern over historical evidence showing that climate shifts can happen over the course of a few decades once a tipping point is reached. While these are by no means certain, and there is an awful lot of debate about how likely this is, these are relatively low probability High impact events and it would be very irresponsible to ignore the risk on the basis of optimism rather than a proper analysis of the dangers.https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-well-have-models-predicted-gw.html We need to support the scientific community to improve their modelling. They require resources to allow them to increase the resolution of their modelling systems, and to include things like ice sheet collapse, better precipitation models, better cloud models etchttps://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Water has a very high heat capacity so a lot of energy goes into raising its temperature. As such it can act as a heat sink and store excess heat, like what you say. This is a known factor in the global climate energy budget.
As water warms it releases stored CO2, just like a bottle of coke loses its CO2 as it goes flat over time. This leads to a positive feedback, with temperature further increasing, releasing more CO2, and so on. It's been modelled over and over but the atmospheric response in the form of global atmospheric temperatures doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the less pessimistic forecasts (RPC4.5).
ABC101 wrote: » Well, just one observation I have to offer. Is there not a phenomenon of Latent Heat of Vaporisation? Take 1 lt of water, heat it to 100 degrees by adding heat. Despite continuing to add more heat, the temperature does not increase, until all the water is converted to steam. After this point is reached, the addition of more heat will raise the temperature. So I wonder... could the same phenomenon be happening with Planet Earth. Heat is being added all the time, but temperature is not raising much. There are reports of ice melting at the N.Pole, Greenland ice sheets receding, Swiss glaciers and so on, not sure what is going on in Argentina etc So IMO.... we do require to be careful, that just because the temperature is not rising much (or not as fast as one would expect) it could be because there is this phenomenon at work?
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Yes, warming is warming, but the rate of warming is the primary area of concern and the one that gets quoted the most. Quotes such as:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming
Oneiric 3 wrote: » No running away warming, but isn't warming still warming at the end of the day? Is the rate of warming of greater interest/concern than the overall trend that indicates a steady and unrelenting warming? Genuine question.
“In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory,” Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said. “It’s unprecedented in 1,000 years. There’s no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).”
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Since the late 1800s the temperature has shown a rising trend. The population then was around 1.5 billion. The population today is 5 times that, yet the rate of warming is similar to that of 100 years ago. Certainly not proportional to the increased emissions from a population almost 5 times as big. There is no runaway warming like there
Akrasia wrote: » But that increasing long term background trend is the global warming, it is the greenhouse effect...
Regarding the temperatures, it's good that you acknowledged that the graph is out of date. What do you think it would show if the previous 4 years of data were included? The last 4 years have shown a staggering surge in temperatures so that unless there is a dramatic cooling in the next few years, we may have already arrived at the 1 degrees above pre-industrial levels that weren't projected to be reached until around 2030 under the RCP 4.5 scenario, and we're well ahead of even the RCP 8.5 scenario, which would indicate that climate sensitivity is higher than we have modelled to.
Longing wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI Dr Easterbrook on Global warming Hoax and facts.
M.T. Cranium wrote: » By the way, if you want to say that evidence of climate change is irrefutable, then why are all of the following things true? -- the worst hurricane season on record in the North Atlantic was 1780. -- the most severe outbreak of tornadoes in the U.S. (by numbers of F-4 or F-5, not by death toll, although that was the highest) was in 1925. -- the most severe heat waves were in 1934 and 1936. 1911 ranks third. -- in Britain, over 360 years, the warmest January was 1916 and the warmest February was 1779. The warmest winter was 1868-69. It is only the December warmth in 2015 that comes from the modern winter period. None of these fairly significant indicators can be used to support the most frequently heard argument for climate change, namely, that "we" are causing severe or unusual weather events. It doesn't stand up to analysis. Apparently, our unsuspecting grandparents or further back generations were doing this, or perhaps it's just natural variability. As to 97% of climate scientists agreeing with the notion of climate change, first of all we need to break that down by what kind of climate change. I might not qualify as part of the sample, or maybe I do, but I would agree that there is climate change simply on the basis that there is always climate change. Our climates have long-term variability. They always have had, and sometimes much larger variations than we've seen. This isn't even the warmest time since the last glacial, that came about five thousand years ago. So I would like to know, is that 97% like 90% who are concerned about human caused variation and 7% only natural, or is it 40-47 or what is it? And who are these 3% that don't believe in climate change, they must believe in a steady-state climate, but I suspect the 3% is like what the Russians used to report as opposition to the party in state elections, it sounded worse if you said 0%. Now if it's maybe 60% who are concerned about human modification and 37% only natural (I don't think there are any other horses in this race) then okay, how many of those 60% feel no peer or workplace pressure and have no reservations? The reason I doubt these numbers apply to human-induced change is simple, on weather forums where meteorologists participate, the discussion quite often seems more balanced than 97-3, more like 50-50. I know for a fact that a lot of AMS members whose jobs are in local forecasting are skeptics. One reason why a local forecaster is more likely to be a skeptic is that today's record highs (and lows) flash before your eyes once a day, and it's sobering to notice after five minutes of the news guy waffling on about "extreme weather" that today's warmish high fell five degrees short of 1890 or even 1942. I hope there will be a more flexible poll taken with more than two options, to some extent the question asked now is a "do you beat your wife?" question, especially if your boss at the institute happens to be listening in.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » On an increasing long-term background trend it's no surprise that recent years have been warmer than earlier ones. I think MT was referring to the flat line from the start of this century.
