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

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You still don't get it. First you say they're always rubbishing the idea, then you post evidence to the contrary. My point was that I've never seen anyone on TV strenuously denying that this event or that can be attributed to agw. Their watery statements are always qualified by a "but that's what we expect to see more of in future".

We got it with the Australian fires, we get it with the US hurricanes, yet there is not one shred of evidence to support it. I heard it this week about the floods in the UK. All immediate automatic attribution. No judge or jury. Now whether some group subsequently denies that this is the case never sees the light of say. Sky News are not going to issue a correction a month later to state that a false statement was made a month ago. To the public the message gas already been absorbed. Another ugly face of anthro GW has been shown as far as they're concerned.

Thargor wrote: »

Does anyone else want to take a crack at this lol

Thargor wrote: »

Looks like we can add this Dr. Shannon George character and the New York Times to the list of conspirators...

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

What was once recently labelled a 'communist conspiracy' is now a 'liberal conspiracy'.

I find this extraordinarily interesting.

Nabber wrote: »

But the point remains none the less.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You still don't get it. First you say they're always rubbishing the idea, then you post evidence to the contrary. My point was that I've never seen anyone on TV strenuously denying that this event or that can be attributed to agw. Their watery statements are always qualified by a "but that's what we expect to see more of in future".

We got it with the Australian fires, we get it with the US hurricanes, yet there is not one shred of evidence to support it. I heard it this week about the floods in the UK. All immediate automatic attribution. No judge or jury. Now whether some group subsequently denies that this is the case never sees the light of say. Sky News are not going to issue a correction a month later to state that a false statement was made a month ago. To the public the message has already been absorbed. Another ugly face of anthro GW has been shown as far as they're concerned.

A study led by Kevin Reed, PhD, Assistant Professor in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) at Stony Brook University, and published in Science Advances, found that Hurricane Florence produced more extreme rainfall and was spatially larger due to human-induced climate change.

The average latitude where tropical cyclones (TCs) reach their peak intensity has been observed to be shifting poleward in some regions over the past 30 years, apparently in concert with the independently observed expansion of the tropical belt. This poleward migration is particularly well observed and robust in the western North Pacific Ocean (WNP). Such a migration is expected to cause systematic changes, both increases and decreases, in regional hazard exposure and risk, particularly if it persists through the present century. Here, it is shown that the past poleward migration in the WNP has coincided with decreased TC exposure in the region of the Philippine and South China Seas, including the Marianas, the Philippines, Vietnam, and southern China, and increased exposure in the region of the East China Sea, including Japan and its Ryukyu Islands, the Korea Peninsula, and parts of eastern China. Additionally, it is shown that projections of WNP TCs simulated by, and downscaled from, an ensemble of numerical models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) demonstrate a continuing poleward migration into the present century following the emissions projections of the representative concentration pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5). The projected migration causes a shift in regional TC exposure that is very similar in pattern and relative amplitude to the past observed shift. In terms of regional differences in vulnerability and resilience based on past TC exposure, the potential ramifications of these future changes are significant. Questions of attribution for the changes are discussed in terms of tropical belt expansion and Pacific decadal sea surface temperature variability.

Hurricane Maria was associated with record‐breaking rainfall over Puerto Rico, which caused unprecedented flooding and landslides across the island and led to widespread devastation. Here we analyze the extreme rainfall produced by Hurricane Maria using 35 historical weather stations with daily precipitation data from 1956–2016. We use a statistical analysis technique to determine how unusual Maria's rainfall was and if Maria's rainfall can be attributed to climate variability and/or climate change. We find that Hurricane Maria produced the single largest maximum rainfall event since 1956 and had the highest precipitation of 129 storms that have impacted the island since 1956. Our study concludes that extreme precipitation, like that of Hurricane Maria, has become much more likely in recent years and long‐term trends in atmospheric and sea surface temperature are both linked to increased precipitation in Puerto Rico. These results place Maria prominently in the context of extreme storms that have impacted Puerto Rico and indicate that such events are becoming increasingly likely.

Akrasia wrote: »

Not a shred of evidence except for all these shreds of evidence (a very small sample of all the very many studies that cover climate attribution)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200102143401.htm


https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0076.1


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL082077

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, these use the usual statement "these events are increasingly likely", while not providing technical proof that each event is actually attributable. Take, for example, Puerto Rico. The highest total since 1956. So up to then the record was from 1956. Their "proof" is a statistical statement that these events are more likely, yet they're taking one event as proof.

When it comes to tropical cyclones I don't take a trend taken over just 30 years to be any indication of a longer term trend. Thirty years is typical of the cyclicity of natural tropical activity patterns, so it is impossible to discern a longer trend from it. Indeed, longer datasets show no difference in tropical activity, be it number or intensity of severe hurricanes/typhoons, ACE, etc., over the past century or more, despite the vast improvements in detection and classification tool of recent decades. Only last month the NHC added 9 new hurricanes to the 1961-65 seasons after reclassification studies found the need for the upgrades. How many more storms were similarly missed decades ago?

Your crazy statement last week that the likes of Dennis and Ciara are down to warming oceans is typical of the unfounded nonsense being spouted by all and sundry, showing the limited understanding of how these systems actually formed (nothing to do with warm waters).

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Watched this disheartening video last night that might be of interest to others:

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Watched this disheartening video last night that might be of interest to others:

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

Seems that the much respected David Attenbourogh has no problem with using deceptive talk and gross imagery to push the idea of climate change. Quite disgusting in fact that they use the real suffering of animals (which he and his camera crew seem to get off on filming) to cause as much distress to his audience, many of which are children and young adults, as possible. In my opinion, these 'nature documentary' types seem to enjoy filming the suffering of animals to an obscene degree, because nobody in their right mind could stand there with a camera and be so utterly detached to the horror of what they are filming as to be able to keep that camera pin point focused on it.

Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred
to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan
Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate
on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing,
Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor
published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on
the effects of sea ice on the population dynamics of polar
bears. However, she has published notes and “briefings”
through a conservative think tank, the Global Warming
Policy Foundation (GWPF), and is described by them as
“an expert on polar bear evolution.” Similarly, the Heartland
Institute, another conservative think tank that downplays
AGW, describes her as “one of the world’s foremost experts
on polar bears.” Prominent among blogs giving Crockford’s
blog disproportionate attention are WUWT and CD, suggesting that her blog reaches a large audience.
The GWPF articles by Crockford claim that contrary
to available scientific and empirical evidence, polar bears
will easily adapt to any changes that Arctic ecosystems may
experience in coming decades (Crockford 2014, 2015).
Crockford’s blog frequently extracts partial research outcomes and portrays them as contrary to the documented
effects of AGW on sea ice or polar bears—supporting a “scientific uncertainty” frame. For example, when alleging sea
ice recovered after 2012, Crockford downplayed the contribution of sea-ice loss to polar-bear population declines
in the Beaufort Sea. Similarly, in GWPF reports and on
her blog, Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers
who have studied polar bears in the field for decades. In
this manner, her blogs highlight a second frame, “public
accountability of science,” evidenced by her claims that
scientists overstate their findings. For example, Crockford
recently called the findings of a new peer-reviewed and vetted paper by USGS scientists (Durner et al. 2017) “bogus,”
“lame,” and “dangerous.” (Crockford 2017). Rhetorical
devices to evoke fear and other emotions, such as implying
that the public is under threat from deceitful scientists, are
common tactics employed by science-denier groups (Barry
et al. 2008).
A primary approach of Crockford’s and other denier
blogs is to frame uncertainty by focusing on the present and
to question the accuracy of future predictions—implying
that the rapid loss of Arctic ice recorded over the past 40
years induced by AGW cannot serve as a guide to future
conditions. This contrasts with the scientific consensus
that polar bears will ultimately disappear if Arctic sea-ice
declines continue unabated (Amstrup et al. 2010). Despite
the roughly linear relationship between observed sea-ice
decline and global mean temperature (Amstrup et al. 2010),
biological responses are often nonlinear. As in other ecosystems, when critical thresholds in habitat availability are
passed, tipping points occur, and species dependent on that
habitat suddenly experience sharp declines (Dai et al. 2012).
Moreover, habitat loss is not always immediately followed
by abundance declines of species dependent on that habitat.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/68/4/281/4644513 by guest on 20 February 2020
Forum
284 BioScience • April 2018 / Vol. 68 No. 4 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience
Instead, the phenomenon of “extinction debt” can create
temporal gaps between the two processes (Kuussaari et al.
2009). These important aspects, vital to our understanding
of future prospects for species in shrinking habitats, including polar bears, are ignored by Crockford’s and other AGWdenying blogs.
Denier blogs

posidonia wrote: »

Examples of where they 'get off' please. Also, please show some examples of where they 'enjoy' the suffering of animals. There are none of either in the video you link - just a load of insults directed at Mr Attenborough.


How could Mr Attenborough save such animals as the walrus falling of cliffs?



Do you criticise those who report war for not taking up guns themselves? How do you think they can watch suffering and not intervene?


The answer is that reporters report.

Akrasia wrote: »

You read so much that that you confuse meteorology with climatology

Every single weather event will have meteorological explanations even if the globe warms by 20c next week

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Quite disgusting in fact that they use the real suffering of animals (which he and his camera crew seem to get off on filming) to cause as much distress to his audience, many of which are children and young adults, as possible. In my opinion, these 'nature documentary' types seem to enjoy filming the suffering of animals to an obscene degree, because nobody in their right mind could stand there with a camera and be so utterly detached to the horror of what they are filming as to be able to keep that camera pin point focused on it.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

So what have we learned from yesterday's exchange?

1. You can dismiss the claims of 'sceptics' by simply calling them sceptics. No refute of their claims necessary.

2. 'Experts' have ample time to dismiss what they must view as high profile sceptics, yet the climate alarmist nonsense we read and hear about on a near daily basis goes unchallenged, coz they are 'too busy doing science'. 2 + 2 = 3.

3. Distressing and disgusting images of unbearable animal suffering is OK if filmed by and used for propagandist purposes by the 'right' people in order upset children and adults alike as much as possible.

4. It is something akin to blasphemy to even dare question the methods of globe trotting millionaires. [\quote] you mean your last refuge of calling everyone a hypocrite if they are in favor of acting on climate change but still consume resources??

It’s obvious what you’re trying to do

5. Evasiveness is the name of the game when nothing of substance is to be have.

Cause calling people hypocrites, religious and alarmist and evasive are very substantive things to say....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Ji6ME3Vlo

Akrasia wrote: »

Cause calling people hypocrites, religious and alarmist and evasive is are very substantive things to say....

posidonia wrote: »

And how are you going to blame Attenborough or cameramen for the 1978 walrus deaths? I'm sure you can find a way to do that...