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

The Dust Bowl conditions of the 1930s is widely accepted to be linked to the positive AMO of the time. The same thing is occuring in the current positive AMO, with similar conditions leading to the California fire weather.

sosndt wrote:

Another way to look at it is. Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't. Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't. Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos? No I wouldn't.

To be fair, YouTube can be a great source of information, a lot of nonsense on it to though, like anything though

sosndt wrote: »

Another way to look at it is.
Would I as a qualified person in my field take advice from a moron on the internet? No I wouldn't.
Or would I as a qualified person allow myself to be instructed on how to do my job by someone with less knowledge than me? No I wouldn't.
Or would I even enter a debate with someone just plain talking out their hole while learning from YouTube videos?
No I wouldn't.

And yet here we are.

I'm grateful someone like MT as a qualified person (and it seems the ONLY qualified person in this chat) does take the time to engage with us randomers on the internet.

This is the sort of chart I was referring to above. The Arctic warming looks a large proportion of the total area but it's actually just a few percent. The red area north of Russia is tiny in reality.



https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1210789517713502208?s=19

pantomine2020 wrote: »

I'm sure you know who he is, the equivalent of posting scientific data provided by Andrew Wakefield on a Vaccination thread.

As this is a new profile I cant post links but a simple search will show this ex Cato institute "scientist" has misrepresented the science continuously to further his career and get into the Trump show.

Again it's who posted it rather than what was posted. Did you find something wrong with the data? That's all that matters. I'm guessing we won't see from you again after this.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The Dust Bowl conditions of the 1930s is widely accepted to be linked to the positive AMO of the time. The same thing is occuring in the current positive AMO, with similar conditions leading to the California fire weather.

SSTs on a more global scale were overall generally cooler than the present though.



with the central Pacific in a possible 'La Nina' phase. (I am not to be quoted on that!)

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I don't think anyone here, not least MT, is claiming that it's not warmer now than 1998, so I don't quite know where you're going with that.

I was talking about Lindzen who banged on about ‘no warming for a decade’ because 1998 was an exceptional year at the time(strong El Niño until it warmed again and now even La Niña years are warmer than 1998 and he has never acknowledged that he was wrong, nor has he revised his opinion when the data came in to refute his low climate sensitivity argument’

This was in response to the US 1934 comment. Most of the global warming has been occuring in the northern hemisphere, where almost 70 percent of the total landmass is. Of that landmass, North America makes up about 30%. To discount this as "local" is not a sound argument.

Its certainly not global now is it Gaoth Laidir

That and the oven analogy are ridiculous and are typical of the hyperbole being spewed out. Sure enough you backed it up with the Guardian link, which must be doing really well out of all the clicks it's been getting from its climate crusade, given that each article comes with a begging bowl at the bottom of the page.

To even associate a 30-degree spike in the Arctic with the same in a French summer, however unlikely, says a lot about the desperate measures required to try to rebutt some points being made. It is infinitely easier (and much more common) for a cold region like the Arctic to warm to still a cold temperature than it is for France to do so.

I posted it and mentioned France to show how extreme this event was for the region. The extreme heat in the arctic was offset by extreme cold in Europe which balanced out the temperature anomalies for that year. When looking at global temperature anomalies, it is disingenuous to point to regional or local extremes to compare against global average temperature anomalies. In 1934 the US was much hotter than average was it colder than average in Siberia, or China, or Europe that year to balance it out?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Engaging with 'contrarians and cranks' is part and parcel of debate. Public debate is what engages the public (hence the term) and helps greatly with the public's understanding of whatever topic is being debated.

What is it about 'scientists', and particularly 'climate scientists' that they set themselves apart from common discourse? If they do wish (as they clearly do) to enter into the political arena as a lobby group, then they'll have to wise up a bit and stop hiding behind 'the scientific literature' and troubled teenage girls in the obvious effort to avoid any serious public scrutiny.

Climate scientists deliver lectures and speak to the public about the science all of the time. Debating on a podium with an opponent is not how science is debated, the format does not suit honest rigorous debate because a liar or a fool can throw out more lies than an honest person can debunk in the allotted rebuttal time and when dealing with esoteric topics the general public can not easily tell which facts are true and which are false

Scientific debate happens in the scientific literature

Non scientists debate climate change all of the time and it usually generates more heat than light

Hooter23 wrote: »

If there is no doubt that climate change is happening as they say it is...then they should have no problem answering ALL questions thrown at them...but they are not willing to do this...and why is that...why are they afraid to have a debate...im sure they are getting well paid for their "research" and they think it should not be questioned at all...Absolutely ridiculous

If you want a video the late Stephen Schneider talked to a room full of skeptics a few weeks before his death.

https://youtu.be/MWgLJrkK8NY
This is from almost 10 years ago and the science has only gotten more robust since then (yet these same ‘skeptic’ arguments keep on getting recycled over and over again

Scientists are not afraid of honest questions about the science

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

OK, fair enough, being pedantic, the IPCC use the word "nearly" for the 5 years. However, they still have it ranging from 1 in 100 to 1 in 3 chance of a single September being ice-free by the end of the century for a 1.5-2-degree stabilised warming. Match that with what some of the leading scientists have projected. Ice-free by 2019-2020 (and even 2016 in some cases). Are these scientists "contrarians", as the IPCC seems to be ignoring them (and rightly so)?

From Wikipedia:

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

OK, fair enough, being pedantic, the IPCC use the word "nearly" for the 5 years. However, they still have it ranging from 1 in 100 to 1 in 3 chance of a single September being ice-free by the end of the century for a 1.5-2-degree stabilised warming. Match that with what some of the leading scientists have projected. Ice-free by 2019-2020 (and even 2016 in some cases). Are these scientists "contrarians", as the IPCC seems to be ignoring them (and rightly so)?

From Wikipedia:

it’s not pedantic to point out that you’re comparing apples with oranges. The odds of any given year being ice free is not the same as the first ice free year.

It’s also not pedantic to point out that the 1 in a hundred odds relates to a scenario where we limit warming to 1.5c or below, not the range between 1.5 and 2c

Peter Wadhams is one of the leading experts on arctic sea ice. He thinks the IPCC are being too conservative on their projections and thinks it is a case of sooner rather than later even with the current levels of warming mainly due to a difference of opinion on methane releases and other feedbacks
On the methane issue Wadhams is a contrarian because I don’t think he is following the best available evidence to inform his view, but even so, his error is on the timescale, not the fundamental science, and his error is likely to be measured in decades rather than centuries, so for the medium term consequences for humanity, we’d be a hell of a lot better off by heeding Wadhams advice than ignoring it

Arctic sea ice develops with the North pole at its centre as the surface area (where the Sun and its radiation are absent) expands from the September equinox to the December Solstice until it reaches a maximum circumference known as the Arctic circle at Northern latitudes and the Antarctic circle at it's Southern equivalent where the Sun and it's radiation is constantly in view. Post Solstice that circumference begins to shrink until the area disappears altogether and the roles are reversed.

The one and only sunrise at the Northern polar latitudes is on the March Equinox where radiation and the Sun stay constantly in view for 6 months with an expanding surface area where the Sun is constantly present thereby causing the seasonal disappearance of sea ice.

It doesn't make me an 'expert' , in fact it doesn't make me anything other than appreciate how the entire surface turns once each year parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion where the North and South Poles ( where net daily rotational velocity is zero) act like beacons for this surface rotation.

The relationship between the polar latitudes to the circle of illumination is the most important as this dictates the surface area in constant solar radiation or where it is absent, again, with the North/South Poles at the centre of expansion and contraction. The distance between the poles increases and decreases when they are at a maximum distance on the Solstice and exist on the circle of illumination of the Equinoxes -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OgLCH7jYp8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory#/media/File:EpicEarth-Globespin-tilt-23.4.gif

Far from being simple, the reasons why Copernicus changed his views from Commentariolus to De Revolutionibus are complicated and involve distinguishing cyclical dynamics as they apply to Earth sciences as opposed to the same dynamics as they apply to a close proximity to timekeeping and into predictive astronomy (eclipses, transits, ect).

First things first - what causes Arctic sea ice to appear and disappear with the North pole at the centre of that development ?. The answer means stepping outside the current topic as it is presented to observers and readers.

Akrasia wrote: »

Climate scientists deliver lectures and speak to the public about the science all of the time. Debating on a podium with an opponent is not how science is debated, the format does not suit honest rigorous debate because a liar or a fool can throw out more lies than an honest person can debunk in the allotted rebuttal time and when dealing with esoteric topics the general public can not easily tell which facts are true and which are false

In other words, climate scientists are of an authoritarian bent. The guardians of an 'esoteric' truth of which the public are to dumb to understand, yet are ordered to accept.

Climate scientists place themselves on too high a horse. They look at numbers, that is all, and numbers that do not matter to the vast majority of people in the world.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Well, if this is a reflection of the attitude of climate scientists, then they fully deserve not to be listened too.

"Cherish those who seek the truth.
Beware of those who find it..."

-Some guy who I can't think of the name of right now.

It's my attitude....not climatologists

Akrasia wrote: »

it’s not pedantic to point out that you’re comparing apples with oranges. The odds of any given year being ice free is not the same as the first ice free year.

It’s also not pedantic to point out that the 1 in a hundred odds relates to a scenario where we limit warming to 1.5c or below, not the range between 1.5 and 2c

I already pointed out that the two probabilities each referred to each temperature rise.

Peter Wadhams is one of the leading experts on arctic sea ice. He thinks the IPCC are being too conservative on their projections and thinks it is a case of sooner rather than later even with the current levels of warming mainly due to a difference of opinion on methane releases and other feedbacks
On the methane issue Wadhams is a contrarian because I don’t think he is following the best available evidence to inform his view, but even so, his error is on the timescale, not the fundamental science, and his error is likely to be measured in decades rather than centuries, so for the medium term consequences for humanity, we’d be a hell of a lot better off by heeding Wadhams advice than ignoring it

So you think we should listen to Wadhams? Have you actually seen what he's said in 2014? He just extrapolated the curve and came up with 2020.

"No models here...this is data." This data shows ice volume "is accelerating downward," Wadhams said. "There doesn't seem to be anything to stop it from going down to zero.

"By 2020, one would expect the summer sea ice to disappear. By summer, we mean September. ... (but) not many years after, the neighboring months would also become ice-free."

But he added that it's hard to deny the actual data. He had plotted the ice decline as a graph curving steadily and increasingly downward since the 1970s and hitting zero in 2020.

Wadhams -- who has spent much of his life working in, on or under the Arctic ice -- said he is not suggesting the Arctic is on its way to becoming the new Mediterranean. He is only suggesting the polar ice cap that has locked the region under ice year-round for centuries is going to go away, at least in summer.

"In fact, it (the Arctic) could become nastier" because of that, he added, citing the weather conditions that can develop as rain, wind and snow whip over vast expanses of broken ice.


Wadhams has previously made predictions that Arctic melt would occur faster than most models estimate; in 2012, he said that the Arctic could be ice-free by the summer of 2015 or 2016.

I think instead of listening to Chief Wadhams we should instead listen to Chief Wiggam.