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

Nabber · 18-01-2020 6:49pm

Akrasia wrote: »

lol. Are you including the vast majority of actual climate scientists amongst the list of people who do not understand the basic premise of climate and it's variations?

Yeah, cause that’s exactly what I meant.

Gaoth Laidir · 18-01-2020 6:50pm

posidonia wrote: »

Is it possible temperature variation is, in some part, responsible for changes in the 'AMO' - if the 'AMO' actually exists? Am I allowed to wonder if that is possible?

It's ok if you've never heard of the AMO, it's only been studied since the 1980s. A quick Google will tell you all you need to know.

You've only recently joined Boards (under that name) but I've previously given evidence several times of why I think it has a significant effect on both Arctic ice and Greenland melt.

There has been no evidence that I've seen to suggest that temperature variation is what drives the AMO; it's the other way around. AMO signals are seen in a wide area of the northern hemisphere, including Europe (temperatures and Alpine glaciers) and north America (a strong driver of the 1930s dust bowl).

Oneiric 3 · 18-01-2020 6:52pm

posidonia wrote: »

'sub-intelligent feminists types? Would you be a smart man?

Not at all, just smarter.

I have no time for any one, be they women or men, of ultra-privilege who constantly portray themselves to be worse off or more oppressed by society than they actually are.

Nabber · 18-01-2020 6:55pm

posidonia wrote: »

But you do?

Clearly a ridiculous assertion. Its about magnitude, rate of occurrence - change.

Am I allowed to challenge you?

Fires. Generally, as more is burnt or cleared (tropics) there is less left to burn? Wrt 1970 you are simply wrong - or at least you are comparing burning grasslands are the and burning forests that normally never burn? Apples V oranges.

Why are there species on the brink of extinction?

Can I challenge you to provides statistics to back up your claims about hurricanes please? You make the claims.

You are right to challenge them. Sure can back them all up. I will when I’m not posting on a mobile.
I would hazard a guess tho that none of the data will be accepted and some folks here will jump to character assassinations.

I’ll follow up some stage this weekend.

posidonia · 18-01-2020 7:05pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's ok if you've never heard of the AMO, it's only been studied since the 1980s. A quick Google will tell you all you need to know.

You've only recently joined Boards (under that name) but I've previously given evidence several times of why I think it has a significant effect on both Arctic ice and Greenland melt.

There has been no evidence that I've seen to suggest that temperature variation is what drives the AMO; it's the other way around. AMO signals are seen in a wide area of the northern hemisphere, including Europe (temperatures and Alpine glaciers) and north America (a strong driver of the 1930s dust bowl).

I didn't say I've not heard of the AMO...

I do wonder if the AMO exists.

Example. Do I think the NAO drives temperatures? No, I think the NAO is a constructed index and it no more drives temperature than a share index drives share prices*. I fell free to think something the same wrt the 'AMO'.

*The parallel should be clear but of course people follow share indexes and that may have an effect on forward prices.

Oneiric 3 · 18-01-2020 7:07pm

I wonder does a colder Arctic have an influence on north Atlantic wind patterns? I don't know what 'drives' the AMO to osculate between pos and neg, but colder air masses crossing over the Atlantic do have an immediate impact on the Atlantic temp profile, so surely it would follow that a prolonged run of anomalous cold within the greater Arctic region would increase the frequency of colder air masses spilling out over the N. Atlantic, which in turn would lower SST anomalies and bring down the AMO index.

Oneiric 3 · 18-01-2020 7:16pm

posidonia wrote: »

I do wonder if the AMO exists.

Well scientists at NCAR seem to think so:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo

So who are you to wonder otherwise?

MiNdGaM3 · 18-01-2020 7:23pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

There has been no evidence that I've seen to suggest that temperature variation is what drives the AMO; it's the other way around. AMO signals are seen in a wide area of the northern hemisphere, including Europe (temperatures and Alpine glaciers) and north America (a strong driver of the 1930s dust bowl).

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation without a role for ocean circulation

These results suggest that the AMO is the response to stochastic forcing from the mid-latitude atmospheric circulation, with thermal coupling playing a role in the tropics.

Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations

Here we use a combination of observational data and state-of-the-art forced and control climate model simulations to demonstrate the absence of consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals that are distinguishable from climatic noise.

A Limited Role for Unforced Internal Variability in Twentieth-Century Warming

....As a consequence, Atlantic multidecadal variability (AMV) is found to be primarily controlled by external forcing too.

oriel36 · 18-01-2020 7:25pm

Thargor wrote: »

Can you just try and make a point without posting links to irrelevant denier videos and podcasts? Its more irritating than Oriels Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres gibberish, and with less relevant content.

You can't help ourselves but then again the sum total of your knowledge of planetary motions is a Royal Society celestial sphere framework -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

The world doesn't deserve being dragged into the world of empirical modeling but then again they hardly know the illness these 'scientific method' people suffer from due to a toxic education.

It is bad form to throw stones after my contribution has ended but such is a lack of class and that can't be bought or taught.

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 7:36pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That's all well and good, but what about those qualified scientists who've held numerous high-ranking positions at various institutions around the world (IPCC, ECMWF, NASA Goddard Institute, Niels Bohr Institute, etc., such as Ray Bates (all of the above, and more)? You have a personal hatred for Bates and make no secret of it, being the reason for your outright condemnation of his last paper without even reading it. Surely you can't have it both ways.

http://www.raybates.net/#

I did read it and his conclusion that climate sensitivity is 1c is nonsense because we've already reached 1c of warming (more or less) and haven't reached the doubling of CO2 yet and we aren't yet at equilibrium so there is more warming built in even if not another additional molecule of CO2 is added to the atmosphere

His continued insistence on referring to Lindzen's Iris effect as the negative feedback that will counteract the radiative forcing of additional greenhouse gasses was not supported by the evidence back in 2016, and even more wrong now following from YS Choi's (lindzen's long standing research partner) most recent paper that shows that the Iris effect could actually be strong positive feedback
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0845.1?mobileUi=0

Thargor · 18-01-2020 7:55pm

oriel36 wrote: »

You can't help ourselves but then again the sum total of your knowledge of planetary motions is a Royal Society celestial sphere framework -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

The world doesn't deserve being dragged into the world of empirical modeling but then again they hardly know the illness these 'scientific method' people suffer from due to a toxic education.

It is bad form to throw stones after my contribution has ended but such is a lack of class and that can't be bought or taught.

Seeing as we have examples of your alt accounts spouting this endless nonsense going back 10 years now I seriously doubt your contribution has ended.

SeaBreezes · 18-01-2020 8:26pm

Thargor wrote: »

Can you just try and make a point without posting links to irrelevant denier videos and podcasts? Its more irritating than Oriels Dynamics of the Celestial Spheres gibberish, and with less relevant content.

Did you have a point ☝️?
Thought you'd given up on us Thargor. I missed the personal attacks and character assassination. :-)

SeaBreezes · 18-01-2020 8:32pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

An interesting observation here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/the-end-is-nigh-the-rise-of-middle-class-apocalypticism/

Abstract:
"Every day we are told repeatedly that ‘catastrophe’ awaits. It will be ‘-catastrophic’ if we leave the EU without a deal, ‘catastrophic’ if America withdraws from the Paris Agreement on climate change, ‘catastrophic’ if we push ahead with fracking, ‘catastrophic’ if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister and so on.

The whingeing middle classes have convinced themselves that the game’s up to such an extent that it seems almost rude not to join them in their grumbling. It used to be only fogeyish Tories who thought the world was ‘going to the dogs’. Now everybody does.

Whether it’s the end of democracy, the destruction of the environment, the rise of populism, impending famine in Africa, fears over nuclear warfare, the pollution of our oceans, the threat of terrorism, worries about how the young will become homeowners, the increase in the cost of private education, the lack of decent avocados in Waitrose, the endless roadworks on the M4 — whatever your gripe, the bourgeois apocalypse is upon us".

But it's ALWAYS been this way. Fearful populations are easier to control/lead.
In the 60s it was nuclear war, with households issued iodine and kids taught to hide under their desks.
In the 70s ice age was imminent, in the 80s oil shortages and pollution, 90s global warming, 20s climate change...

Thargor · 18-01-2020 8:32pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Did you have a point ☝️?

Yes? Its right there in the post...

Stop wasting peoples time posting links to videos and podcasts then falsely claiming its all explained in there which it never is because you're too lazy to type out any evidence for your claims.

SeaBreezes · 18-01-2020 8:36pm

Thargor wrote: »

Yes? Its right there in the post...

Stop wasting peoples time posting links to videos and podcasts then falsely claiming its all explained in there which it never is because you're too lazy to type out any evidence for your claims.

Stop wasting time with personal attacks cause your too lazy to read/listen to said material....

Edit: For anyone interested:
https://omny.fm/shows/danielle-smith/understanding-weather-and-climate

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 8:41pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Stop wasting time with personal attacks cause your too lazy to read/listen to said material....

Edit: For anyone interested:
https://omny.fm/shows/danielle-smith/understanding-weather-and-climate

I listened to it. Now as my reward, can you tell me which bit of that interview you found most convincing and did you bother to check is his assertions were accurate?

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 8:44pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

But it's ALWAYS been this way. Fearful populations are easier to control/lead.
In the 60s it was nuclear war, with households issued iodine and kids taught to hide under their desks.
In the 70s ice age was imminent, in the 80s oil shortages and pollution, 90s global warming, 20s climate change...

That’s quite a stunted history lesson right there. Which global organization is deciding what we should all be afraid of at any given time?

SeaBreezes · 18-01-2020 8:44pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I listened to it. Now as my reward, can you tell me which bit of that interview you found most convincing and did you bother to check is his assertions were accurate?

Still waiting for you to answer my questions Akrasia... you first..

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 8:44pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Still waiting for you to answer my questions Akrasia... you first..

I’ve forgotten your question

SeaBreezes · 18-01-2020 8:54pm

Akrasia wrote: »

That’s quite a stunted history lesson right there. Which global organization is deciding what we should all be afraid of at any given time?

My god you are a conspiracist!!

Just making general observations on fears in every generation.

I was thinking of Orwell and 1984.. anyhoo back to the climate debate...

So, your ok with taking just one model of RSS data for troposphere measurements, AND adjusting that to the highest error margin possible for every data point? Even though in 2007 the UK met office warned the IPCC the troposphere wasn't warming, and their adjusting the data to suit the narrative was bad science?

But actual weather balloon readings of the troposphere from 2010 and NASA data is to be ignored by the DRs Connelly because they are not the IPCC.

I see....

SeaBreezes · 18-01-2020 8:55pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I’ve forgotten your question

I'm sure you have. :-)

SeaBreezes · 18-01-2020 9:06pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's ok if you've never heard of the AMO, it's only been studied since the 1980s. A quick Google will tell you all you need to know.

You've only recently joined Boards (under that name) but I've previously given evidence several times of why I think it has a significant effect on both Arctic ice and Greenland melt.

There has been no evidence that I've seen to suggest that temperature variation is what drives the AMO; it's the other way around. AMO signals are seen in a wide area of the northern hemisphere, including Europe (temperatures and Alpine glaciers) and north America (a strong driver of the 1930s dust bowl).

Surprised posidonia doesn't know what the AMO is, they referred to MT as Rodger directly after joining, and he's known as that from the Netweather forum?

Was one of their first posts on joining. Guess they forgot which forum they were on.

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 9:17pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

My god you are a conspiracist!!

Just making general observations on fears in every generation.

I was thinking of Orwell and 1984.. anyhoo back to the climate debate...

So, your ok with taking just one model of RSS data for troposphere measurements, AND adjusting that to the highest error margin possible for every data point? Even though in 2007 the UK met office warned the IPCC the troposphere wasn't warming, and their adjusting the data to suit the narrative was bad science?

But actual weather balloon readings of the troposphere from 2010 and NASA data is to be ignored by the DRs Connelly because they are not the IPCC.

I see....

The RSS results were adjusted because of orbital decay giving incorrect results at mid latitudes

The weather balloons records were inaccurate because earlier sensors were not properly shielded from the sun so they reported hotter temperatures during the day (night time recordings were not affected). Scientists have known about this for 15 years, the Connollys ignore this because it doesn’t suit their narrative

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 9:20pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I'm sure you have. :-)

Seems you’ve forgotten it too. Seeing as we’ve both forgotten, why don’t you answer a simple question about why you believe two unqualified fraudsters who faked their own ‘peer reviewed journal’ to publish their own nonsense in, over the vast swathes of climate scientists who these guys are contradicting

SeaBreezes · 18-01-2020 9:27pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The RSS results were adjusted because of orbital decay giving incorrect results at mid latitudes

The weather balloons records were inaccurate because earlier sensors were not properly shielded from the sun so they reported hotter temperatures during the day (night time recordings were not affected). Scientists have known about this for 15 years, the Connollys ignore this because it doesn’t suit their narrative

And yet the temps STILL don't report a warming?

Oneiric 3 · 18-01-2020 9:31pm

Akrasia wrote: »

That’s quite a stunted history lesson right there. Which global organization is deciding what we should all be afraid of at any given time?

Worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jK9qd6ow_k

It's all about the clicks... and the ads.

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 9:33pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jK9qd6ow

It's all about the clicks... and the ads.

The video won’t load

Oneiric 3 · 18-01-2020 9:38pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The video won’t load

Works now I think. Gammy code.

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 9:41pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

And yet the temps STILL don't report a warming?

Yes they do

Except in the stratosphere where they show cooling, which is exactly what is to be expected by the greenhouse effect reducing the earths ability to radiate heat to space

Akrasia · 18-01-2020 10:28pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jK9qd6ow_k

It's all about the clicks... and the ads.

That might explain media sensationalism but it does nothing to explain why pretty much every scientist who knows what they’re talking about agrees that climate change is real and a very serious threat that needs to be tackled

These scientists aren’t scared by media hype, they see the effects first hand and in their own research

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

Comments