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

gozunda · 21-12-2019 3:00pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Meanwhile I've taken his data and added 10-yr running means to the Toronto and C.E.T. series.

It's notable how there is no runaway rise in temperature in recent decades in either series (and indeed in the whole Global dataset). The old hockeystick of yesteryore seems to have had a chunk broken off its tip. Whatever the reason for the warming dragging its heels, it is something that is not accounted for in the projections of doom. Globally, the dataset is not even rising in line with the RCP4.5 Business-as-usual scenario.

Anyway, it's only fair that MT be allowed time to expand on this idea here before the smash-and-grab looting continues.

With regard to the Hockey Stick graph (used by the IPCC) which you mentioned

Problems with the 'hockey stick' data revealed following a recent court case

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw

Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, the creator of the “hockey stick graph” which appears to show global temperatures climbing upwards as a result of the burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The graph was first published in 1998, prominently featured in the 2001 UN Climate Report, and formed part of Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

Also the UN were left with eggs on their collective faces when it was found and later admitted significant flaws in report on meat and climate change. They claimed that animal agriculture emissions were greater than that of transport - this was challenged by scientists and found to be solely based on flawed data calculations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

There are other issues with some of the other data used by the IPCC

And none of that is denying climate change btw

Its simply that bodies like the UN can and do get things badly wrong and it takes other scientists to stand up and say so ...

Kingswood Rover · 21-12-2019 3:03pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

The 99% aspire to reach that level of lifestyle so population growth is indeed the key - especially as it already is the main driver of habitat destruction etc. across the planet

The unrelenting drive for increased economic growth is a real problem and when an economy flats lines or regresses there is a sense of whats gone wrong from the powers that be. You cannot keep growing economies indefinitely year after year after year eventually you run out of planet, thats where we are either we get of this rock to go and do the same to other rocks or we all kop on.

Coles · 21-12-2019 3:26pm

Danno wrote: »

What economic system to you suggest gets imposed?

Please expand on this.

Sustainable Capitalism. Where hard work, innovation and ingenuity is rewarded, but not at the expense of the environment or ecology that we all depend on.

And, where capable, everyone must pay their own way in life.

Coles · 21-12-2019 3:30pm

thecomedian wrote: »

As MT gave us his qualifications and experience (which to me were very impressive) would you mind sharing your qualifications in the area.

My qualifications to say "listen to the science"? What qualifications do I need?

SeaBreezes · 21-12-2019 3:39pm

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Kind of. It's more to do with the mass of the planets and the mass of the solar system in particular.

Her interrogators are trying to establish whether she is stating that:

Do you think she isn't? If she is isn't what exactly is she then claiming? Yes she has established a better understanding of the mechanisms of magnetic oscillations and their correlation with the sun's orbit around the barycentre,if i understand correctly,but that doesn't support an assertion that the current climate change can be attributed to the natural forcing mechanism of the variability of the sun's irradiance. Does it?

Of course they do, as I and another poster already mentioned, so why do you think they don't? How could they not? That would be absurd.

They have and there are many sources on the internet that demonstrate that. Have you not come across them?

It's no more my science than it is yours. This is a scientific forum so it's an opportunity to learn by applying your own critical faculties without adopting an entrenched position the minute you are challenged. People reason then question and elicit answers which they consider and test with reference to other sources.

Finally why do you think I've only been studying this subject for 12 hours. What difference does it make anyway since I'm only quoting her paper and her defense of its findings and then posing my own questions. Is this considered unethical behaviour in a science forum?

Because you haven't given me any solid evidence at all. You just keep telling me this is the way it is. No published papers. Nothing.

Also you say: "the current climate change can be attributed to the natural forcing mechanism of the variability of the sun's irradiance. Does it?"

she NEVER says that. She has NO interest in arguing with the IPCC. That's career suicide. They burn scientists at the stake who disagree.

The fact her work does not correlate with the IPCC has brought her enough grief.

She is a Solar physicist with fiercely interesting ideas and observations that are changing the way we see the sun. And she's been right every. Single. Time. She herself has said she's not a climate scientist.
And no-one here is arguing we shouldn't poison the earth, we are just saying it's not as black and white as the IPCC narrative. And in my opinion any climate model that does NOT take the sun into account isn't accurate. It can't be!

You however haven't answered a single question I asked you. Evasive vague answers, no actual fact, when I have been more than helpful.
Im disappointed you have no links to published papers, to the 'scientists' on which you are basing your beliefs.

Any more questions? Google it yourself. I'm done.

daheff · 21-12-2019 3:54pm

My view is regardless of whether climate change is man made or a natural phenomenon, we should not be polluting the planet the way we are.

A couple of good points made in the op around desolate land & below sea level.... especially in Africa. If an inland lake/sea were made to take some sea, how would that effect the local climate?

Tuisceanch · 21-12-2019 4:12pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Because you haven't given me any solid evidence at all. You just keep telling me this is the way it is. No published papers. Nothing.

Also you say: "the current climate change can be attributed to the natural forcing mechanism of the variability of the sun's irradiance. Does it?"

she NEVER says that. She has NO interest in arguing with the IPCC. That's career suicide. They burn scientists at the stake who disagree.

The fact her work does not correlate with the IPCC has brought her enough grief.

She is a Solar physicist with fiercely interesting ideas and observations that are changing the way we see the sun. And she's been right every. Single. Time. She herself has said she's not a climate scientist.
And no-one here is arguing we shouldn't poison the earth, we are just saying it's not as black and white as the IPCC narrative. And in my opinion any climate model that does NOT take the sun into account isn't accurate. It can't be!

You however haven't answered a single question I asked you. Evasive vague answers, no actual fact, when I have been more than helpful.
Im disappointed you have no links to published papers, to the 'scientists' on which you are basing your beliefs.

Any more questions? Google it yourself. I'm done.

You've already being linked to and quoted from sources which directly contradict the text highlighted. Are you denying that you haven't?

You have also provided no links to scientific papers.whereas I have so you've no room to talk. The fact is I posted the links to her paper amongst others that were referenced by her paper and the discussion,which I then read. I also posted the link to the conversation that took place between her and other scientists providing quotes and posed the question that had she had in fact answered this question or did she actually deny making it?

Do you claim that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre results in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance?

You also state

Also you say: "the current climate change can be attributed to the natural forcing mechanism of the variability of the sun's irradiance. Does it?"

she NEVER says that. She has NO interest in arguing with the IPCC. That's career suicide. They burn scientists at the stake who disagree.

but she said

Ken Rice believes that the tiny amount of carbon dioxide in the terrestrial atmosphere acts stronger than the hot Sun moving towards the Earth, this is his belief, I cannot change it.

But the common sense and basic logics of analysing the solar data speaks otherwise.

Doesn't that contradict your assertion straight from the horse's mouth. That's actually at the very top of the conversation I linked so how did you manage to miss that?

Since you seem be so familiar with her work I would have thought you could have pointed to references which proved she hadn't. All you did was say something along the lines of "she swept the floor with them". I would have expected something more learned from somebody who I assumed was such a fan of her work so I tried again and received yet another tirade deflecting the subject all and sundry. The subject is complex and so it would be useful to at least establish the truth of whether she did indeed state the above,before continuing and discussing CME and the effect of Solar activity on the geomagnetic field.

Can you be honest and tell me whether you have in fact read any of her papers? It's not a problem if you haven't but I don't really understand why you are being so evasive about a subject that you brought up. If my questions were too difficult for you and you don't feel competent to answer them then there's no shame in that either but just say so rather than becoming all defensive and hurling unfounded accusations to the wind i.e. as it's in fact me who has,so far,put all the work in and not you!!! Your attitude doesn't help anybody understand the subject. The devil is in the detail as they say?

Coles · 21-12-2019 4:13pm

daheff wrote: »

If an inland lake/sea were made to take some sea, how would that effect the local climate?

4 Trillion tons of ice has melted from Greenland in the last 25 years. If we were to store that water we would need to flood an area of land 1000km by 1000km, 4 meters deep. We'd need to flood an additional area of land every 25 years. And that's just the melt water from Greenland.

Gaoth Laidir · 21-12-2019 6:28pm

Coles wrote: »

4 Trillion tons of ice has melted from Greenland in the last 25 years. If we were to store that water we would need to flood an area of land 1000km by 1000km, 4 meters deep. We'd need to flood an additional area of land every 25 years. And that's just the melt water from Greenland.

Well it's a good thing then that the rate of melt in Greenland has stopped increasing for now anyway. For a minute there people were thinking it would be a runaway melt, with larger and larger amounts of ice being lost every year. Nice to see that's not the case.

Hooter23 · 21-12-2019 7:03pm

Climate change or not you can bet whatever happens the media will always make it out to be something bad no such thing as good news always the end of the world...

Remember the millenium bug where everyone thought the world was going to meltdown over a date changing :rolleyes:

We are just as stupid today its just crisis after crisis

Coles · 21-12-2019 7:10pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Well it's a good thing then that the rate of melt in Greenland has stopped increasing for now anyway. For a minute there people were thinking it would be a runaway melt, with larger and larger amounts of ice being lost every year. Nice to see that's not the case.

Again, this is completely misleading and disingenuous.

The melt rate is only part of the equation. To see the full picture you need to look at the mass balance.

In the 1990's the mass balance was approximately -35 cubic kilometers. What this means is that while 400 cubic km was melting it was being replaced by 360cu km of water in ice or snow form.

Now the mass balance is -250 cubic kilometers. This is a seven fold acceleration in the rate of loss of Greenland's ice.

This is happening. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to pretend it's not.

https://www.businessinsider.com/greenland-ice-loss-rate-7-times-higher-2019-12

Coles · 21-12-2019 7:19pm

Hooter23 wrote: »

Climate change or not you can bet whatever happens the media will always make it out to be something bad no such thing as good news always the end of the world...

Remember the millenium bug where everyone thought the world was going to meltdown over a date changing :rolleyes:

We are just as stupid today its just crisis after crisis:rolleyes:

The reason the 'millennium bug' wasn't a major disturbance was because software and hardware engineers had enough notice and understanding of the problem to actually take action. If it was left to "millennium bug deniers" then the entire economy would have collapsed.ðŸ‘

Gaoth Laidir · 21-12-2019 8:00pm

Coles wrote: »

Again, this is completely misleading and disingenuous.

The melt rate is only part of the equation. To see the full picture you need to look at the mass balance.

In the 1990's the mass balance was approximately -35 cubic kilometers. What this means is that while 400 cubic km was melting it was being replaced by 360cu km of water in ice or snow form.

Now the mass balance is -250 cubic kilometers. This is a seven fold acceleration in the rate of loss of Greenland's ice.

This is happening. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to pretend it's not.

https://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyDNNNews/thumbs/697/794tedesco-Fig3.png]

I'm not sure you understand the term acceleration. The mass balance is showing no acceleration, at least since the start of the GRACE dataset in 2002. Around 270 Gt/y, which equates to around 0.7 mm/y (7 mm/decade)sea level rise. Greenland is around 210 Gt/y, about 0.4 mm/y (4 mm/decade).

Gaoth Laidir · 21-12-2019 8:36pm

Coles wrote: »

My qualifications to say "listen to the science"? What qualifications do I need?

So do you now ackknowledge that MT is qualified enough to satisfy your concerns and you can now start discussing WHAT he's written instead of if he was qualified to write it?

M.T. Cranium · 21-12-2019 9:15pm

My credentials are not really the point here, I think if any reasonably knowledgeable weather enthusiast advanced a theory about climate change, I would be inclined to take it seriously and give it a fair chance, even if that person had no actual training in meteorology or climatology. The basic concepts here are not that complicated. It's the interpretation part that causes controversy. Most people reading this will probably agree that it has warmed up over past decades, and many will agree that said warming seems to have slowed down in the past decade. We are just debating why these things are happening.

On another forum I am being asked to accept that the data over the past 120 years show only a human caused warming and that greater than the actual warming since otherwise it would now be colder than 120 years ago.

That's hard enough to believe for European weather, but for eastern North America? I just find it entirely laughable, that invites me to believe that strong warming signals that began in the 1890s and pulsed strongly in the 1910s and 1930s had a human origin, and that the weather even then would have been considerably colder without a human presence. So I try to imagine what weather would have been taking place in our absence, and cannot see how it could therefore be anything but an entirely different circulation pattern. You're not going to take some modified arctic air mass, blow a bit of methane and carbon dioxide into it, and get the 1911 or 1936 heat waves. So that assertion that they make as proven science that all must accept is nonsense on the face of it.

If this were just an academic debate, that would be bad enough. But it has also become the basis of political actions and movements. The leader of the Green Party of Canada says "you can't debate physics." By that she means you can't debate the stated science of climate change. But I think you can debate that part of physics and should, until it gets fixed and squared with reality.

Reality forces me to accept two things -- yes it is getting warmer, but no it is not all because of human activity.

I've been told this is a belief structure and not science, but I counter that by saying it is closer to real science than its alternative competing version. And it suggests different outcomes in the future, so the predictive frameworks are therefore different now and more different by 2050 or 2100.

M.T. Cranium · 21-12-2019 9:28pm

Somewhat off topic, but if you're a young person looking for a career in engineering or science, I would say work on some scheme that could evaporate large amounts of sea water. If there was a byproduct of desalinated fresh water, or electrical generation, that would be even better.

This whole "problem" of melting polar ice would be much reduced if we had some means of evaporating sea water on a large scale. It probably sounds far-fetched but then technological change over 100-200 year intervals has already been unimaginable to people who lived a century or two centuries ago. So I would not be quick to dismiss the possibility this result could be developed.

Someone earlier asked what effect on climate would there be if ocean surface area was increased, in a specific case, into parts of the Sahara in west Africa?

That is a fairly complex question and I don't feel qualified to answer it. My guess though is that it would make very little difference to the climate on the nearby land mass in that location. At different latitudes in different climate zones it might make larger differences. If I am wrong about this, it is probably not in the direction of having a worse climate for human habitation, any change would more likely be for the better (perhaps it would be somewhat cooler in summer and very infrequent rain would be slightly less infrequent).

Akrasia · 21-12-2019 9:30pm

Welcome to the party MT. You’re about 2 decades late and still missing the point but at least you’re not denying the human influence on climate

I have no idea how you can conclude that human activity is 1/3 of the climate forcing given that you know that the planet should be in a naturally cooling phase. This means that human influence is overwhelming the natural cooling and that human influence is to cause greater than 100% of the observed warming, mitigated by the natural cooling

I’m glad that you now accept the need to act but you still have a bit more road to travel before you overcome whatever bias you have that prevented you from accepting this sooner

Akrasia · 21-12-2019 9:41pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Most people reading this will probably agree that it has warmed up over past decades, and many will agree that said warming seems to have slowed down in the past decade.

Warming hasn’t slowed at all. Since 2015 temperatures have surged by .2 of a degree

Without cherry-picking the start and end dates climate change has been accelerating

$PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5[\img]$ https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates

bfa1509 · 21-12-2019 9:43pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Welcome to the party MT. You’re about 2 decades late and still missing the point but at least you’re not denying the human influence on climate

I have no idea how you can conclude that human activity is 1/3 of the climate forcing given that you know that the planet should be in a naturally cooling phase. This means that human influence is overwhelming the natural cooling and that human influence is to cause greater than 100% of the observed warming, mitigated by the natural cooling

I’m glad that you now accept the need to act but you still have a bit more road to travel before you overcome whatever bias you have that prevented you from accepting this sooner

Sweet Jesus, should I start digging a bunker or building an ark??

I see a lot of people here presenting graphs and other solid evidence/research supporting their argument. I would love to know what the sources are for your claims?

Akrasia · 21-12-2019 9:51pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus, should I start digging a bunker or building an ark??

I see a lot of people here presenting graphs and other solid evidence/research supporting their argument. I would love to know what the sources are for your claims?

Which of my claims do you need a source for and I’ll happily provide some for you ( from reputable scientific papers or institutions)

Gaoth Laidir · 21-12-2019 9:59pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Warming hasn’t slowed at all. Since 2015 temperatures have surged by .2 of a degree

Without cherry-picking the start and end dates climate change has been accelerating

$PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5[\img]$ https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates

The link said it was unsecure for me.

You love your verbs. "Surged" and other such superlative verbs are used instead of a simple "increased". But anyway, you say 0.2 degrees, but it's pretty notable the difference of about 0.12 degrees between the HADCRUT and GISTEMP datasets at the most recent point. When fractions of a degree per decade are being argued over, those datasets should be pretty damn well overlapping.

Here's the chart you were trying to post. I wonder if the current most recent spike will last the same as the exact same spike that occured in the 1940s. Time will tell.

PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5

PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5

Ruhanna · 21-12-2019 10:10pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Many will agree that said warming seems to have slowed down in the past decade.

They'd be wrong.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

We are just debating why these things are happening.

There is no legitimate or evidence-based debate on that topic. The observed warming over the past decades is anthropogenic. The cause (GHG emissions) is anthropogenic. The reduction in global ice mass balance is anthropogenic. The acceleration in atmospheric CO2 and sea level rise is anthropogenic. The ongoing trend in record high temperatures is anthropogenic.

All else is distraction and diversion, and attempts to claim otherwise are motivated by politics or ideology.

It seems your perspective on this subject has barely changed in the past 12 years:

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Ask me again in 2020, because the jury is still somewhat out on this, despite many stories in the news about scientists say this, blah blah, there is probably still quite a bit of uncertainty. First of all, is the globe really warming or is it just some regional climate shifts in recent years. Some parts are definitely warming, others haven't seen that much change.

Secondly, it is far from certain that such warming as may have happened is really from human causes. It could be a natural cycle that would be quite capable of reversing (some wonder if it just did last year).

Third big problem, many believe that solar cycles on the longer time scale are important, and we are overdue for a "quieter regime" than our Sun has been in for the past century. If this relative minimum does show up, there could be a natural cooling tendency that might outweigh a smaller human=related warming tendency.

So, all things considered, I believe it is wise to push for cleaner technology and alternate fuel sources (cheaper ones, hopefully), but it is also wise to be open to any number of possible outcomes, including a cooling trend at some future point, a steady-state climate like the present, or warming that we can't control, that would raise sea levels whether we have programs in place to reduce greenhouse gases or not. Any of these outcomes are possible.

I would say "b.s." might be too strong a term, but if you asked, is global warming proven beyond doubt, I would say no, and its causes may not be as much of our fault as some are saying. So we should be cautious about what to do, and what to expect, because it would be just our luck (speaking about the human race in general) for an ice age to set in just when the atmosphere is restored to its pristine glory. At least we'll see the ice coming.

[Deleted User] · 21-12-2019 10:36pm

Ruhanna wrote: »

They'd be wrong.

There is no legitimate or evidence-based debate on that topic. The observed warming over the past decades is anthropogenic. The cause (GHG emissions) is anthropogenic. The reduction in global ice mass balance is anthropogenic. The acceleration in atmospheric CO2 and sea level rise is anthropogenic. The ongoing trend in record high temperatures is anthropogenic.

All else is distraction and diversion, and attempts to claim otherwise are motivated by politics or ideology.

It seems your perspective on this subject has barely changed in the past 12 years:

Demonstrate or support

Pa ElGrande · 21-12-2019 10:42pm

Ruhanna wrote: »

There is no legitimate or evidence-based debate on that topic. The observed warming over the past decades is anthropogenic. The cause (GHG emissions) is anthropogenic. The reduction in global ice mass balance is anthropogenic. The acceleration in atmospheric CO2 and sea level rise is anthropogenic. The ongoing trend in record high temperatures is anthropogenic.

What you have stated is illiterate nonsense. Please rephrase what you stated in a manner that is consistent with the science.

For your information the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is based on the fundamental assumption that disturbances in the Earth’s energy budget – driven by changes in downward longwave radiation from CO2 - are what cause climate change. However, You should realise it is effectively impossible to clearly discern a human influence on climate and the claims made rest on assumptions.

Shortwave-vs-Longwave-forcing-2005-2014-uncertainty-Kato-2018.jpg

[/QUOTE]

For your information UK mean temperatures for November have been cooling moderately since 1998 and More real data show Scandinavia, Ireland NOT WARMING over past decades.

Carol25 · 21-12-2019 10:43pm

Can I just make a brief point, at the moment there’s a hashtag on twitter called #australiafires. It shows the frightening scale of global warming on the continent. Australia has just had its hottest day on record once again this week. Seems a yearly occurrence. I understand human environmental mismanagement has a huge part to play also but when you see birds dropping dead from the sky due to no water, koalas approaching humans for water, people reporting hearing animals screams as they burn and children playing on a swing while a bush fire rages in the background, it should make the most skeptical of climate change deniers sit up and take notice.

[Deleted User] · 21-12-2019 10:45pm

Carol25 wrote: »

Can I just make a brief point, at the moment there’s a hashtag on twitter called #australiafires. It shows the frightening scale of global warming on the continent. Australia has just had its hottest day on record once again this week. Seems a yearly occurrence. I understand human environmental mismanagement has a huge part to play also but when you see birds dropping dead from the sky due to no water, koalas approaching humans for water, people reporting hearing animals screams as they burn and children playing on a swing while a bush fire rages in the background, it should make the most skeptical of climate change deniers sit up and take notice.

My understanding is records only began very recently,, and the fires were arson

Pa ElGrande · 21-12-2019 10:46pm

Carol25 wrote: »

Can I just make a brief point, at the moment there’s a hashtag on twitter called #australiafires. It shows the frightening scale of global warming on the continent. Australia has just had its hottest day on record once again this week. Seems a yearly occurrence. I understand human environmental mismanagement has a huge part to play also but when you see birds dropping dead from the sky due to no water, koalas approaching humans for water, people reporting hearing animals screams as they burn and children playing on a swing while a bush fire rages in the background, it should make the most skeptical of climate change deniers sit up and take notice.

Australias hottest day on record was in January 1896.

Carol25 · 21-12-2019 10:50pm

LorenzoB wrote: »

My understanding is records only began very recently,, and the fires were arson

Are you really going to deny the scale of what is happening in Australia. Take a look at this map of the current fires burning. Are they all arson? All at the same time? Where is all the water to put them out? Nowhere because they have none due to severe drought.
Are you a supportter of their current PM climate denier who flew to Hawaii on a 250million private jet, wants to increase coal production and left his volunteer fire fighters to die while trying to deal with this mess?

Gaoth Laidir · 21-12-2019 10:52pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Warming hasn’t slowed at all. Since 2015 temperatures have surged by .2 of a degree

Without cherry-picking the start and end dates climate change has been accelerating

$PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5[\img]$ https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates

That link now works for me. I'm just curious, with people accusing others of cherrypicking, did the WMO do a similar study for the 10 years befoe 2015, you know, where there was no real warming? As I said, just curious.

Carol25 · 21-12-2019 10:59pm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Australias hottest day on record was in January 1896.

Incorrect
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-50837025

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

Comments