The Climate Change Thread

[Karl]

Interesting and reasonably balanced comments
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest...utlived-its-usefulness-interview-judith-curry

Whats the Warmist view on Judith Curry? I'm curious to see how she gets shot down.

 

[Karl]

Solar irradience doesn't account for the temperature rise over the past century. I'm pretty sure we've been through this.

And as far as I know the researchers/organisations who study things like the sun's activity and present us with the available data, don't conclude the sun is causing the earth's temperatures to rise. I just find it weird how people will use their data and ignore everything else they say.

We have been through this. Posts 418, 419, 421, 426, 432, 437 re TSI A few pages of it. All have peer reviewed studies etc, as well as debate on the issue, rebuttal and our usual back and forth along with a summary of my position.

We don't need to go there again.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Never heard of her. She seems to think the IPCC are slightly to confident on some issues. Others say they are holding back too much. Interesting disucssion I suppose, not sure why anyone needs to be shot down over it, unless they are making false claims about one another.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

For anyone interested. Here is a climate scientist James Hanson speaking about his work.

(he touches on the 'sun activity is causing warming' claim at about 8.10)

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Once again, you guys makes the claims. I do the research...

Science is interesting when you actually look at predictions made rather than make the stuff up. Most of this is freely available on the net and took me about 10 minutes to gather. Here is the climate model Hanson came up with in 1988:

NASA/Hanson's model 1988.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

(you can see, no "end of world" prediction, might need to re-consider that one)

Here is the model prediction, there are 3 scenarios:

Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.​

So in 1997 the most extreme scenario *A* (which didn't happen anyway) had the temperature at +.45c. While the projections closer to reality were actually well on track in 1997.

However, they starting drifting off in the next decade because Hanson slightly overestimated climate sensitivity (4*c for doubling of co2). The estimates now are more around 3*c. (i think that's what the IPCC use).

So Hanson's model was actually doing alright. He got the basic trends right but the over-estimation of sensitivity, so future models knew to tone that down a little. That is how science works. No one was "discredited" for getting something slightly wrong, or not 100% perfect.

There doesn't appear to be any doomsday predictions or massive projection failures. All these claims seem to be coming from people who don't like science, or want to discredit climate scientists unfairly.

What surprises me is that you don't see people in the thread about quantum mechanics throwing wild accusations at CERN researchers, we are all baffled by their entire field. Yet when it's top physicists studying climate (also with great intelligence) people will go to any lengths just to try and discredit their results. There is news coming out that the "faster than light" neutrino result was caused by a loose cable or something, so everyone says "unlucky guys, good work on finding that error so quick", but if it was the IPCC everyone would say "OMG YOUR DISCREDITED NOW BITCHES WTF HOW CAN TOP SCIENTISTS MAKE MISTAKES I THOUGHT THIS WAS PEER REVIEWED I WANT A REFUND GET YOUR HANDS OF MY MONEY WHO ARE YOU FUNDED BY!!!!!!!!"

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Scenario A didn't "miss by 400%". If you understood the basics of the paper you wouldn't come to this crazy conclusion.

The emission levels required for scenario A didn't happen. It was closer to that of B/C (I don't know precisely what it was).

He went to congress and said "If 1 happens, we predict A" "If 2 happens, we predict B" "If 3 happens, we predict C".

1 didn't happen. If 1 did happen, the real temps would obviously be higher than today and probably line up closer to A than it would with B and C.

Look, if you are more interested in throwing wild accusations at people than looking at the actual science that's fine, it's OK to have an opinion. Just needed to clear this up so people watching the video don't get the wrong idea about your comment.

The scientific opinion is that Hanson's paper from 1988 did not discredit him at all. Neither did it discredit the other authors or NASA. Niether does it predict "the end of the world". Neither was it "wrong by 400%".

There is a lot of misinformation out there, everyone falls for it from time to time. The best thing is to always check the source of any of these claims like I have done here to get a clearer picture. And it's always important to bring sources to these discussions.

 

[Joe Mac]

I appreciate your info Bru, and I am the first to admit I am not an expert. I think these responses from the ZeroHedge interview sums up my feelings on the issue, particularly the bits I have underlined;

I Personally, I think we put the CO2 stabilization policy ‘cart’ way before the scientific horse. The UN treaty on dangerous climate change in 1992 was formulated and signed before we even had ‘discernible’ evidence of warming induced by CO2, as reported in 1995 by the IPCC second assessment report. As a result of this, we have only been considering one policy option (CO2 stabilization), which in my opinion is not a robust policy option given the uncertainties in how much climate is changing in response to CO2.


This comment I also find relevant.

Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.
Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex - all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.

 

[Karl]

Hanson is the guy that fronted to congress to talk about how the world was going to end and that temperatures would rise by .5 of a degree by 1997... He has no credibility

This guy looks like a bit of an extremist to me. His Arrest Record is nearly as impressive as his Scientific Record.

Based on his charts and actual data, I'm seeing scenario 3 as the one tracking, but not for the reasons he came up with.

Physicist Freeman Dyson is critical of Hansen's climate-change activism. "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.” [92] Dyson "doesn’t know what he’s talking about", Hansen responded. "He should first do his homework." [92] Dyson stated in an interview that the argument with Hansen was exaggerated by the New York Times, stating that he and Hansen are "friends, but we don't agree on everything."[93]
After Hansen's arrest in West Virginia, New York Times columnist Andrew Revkin wrote: "Dr. Hansen has pushed far beyond the boundaries of the conventional role of scientists, particularly government scientists, in the environmental policy debate." [86] In 2009, Hansen advocated the participation of citizens at a March 2 protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Washington, D.C. Hansen stated, "We need to send a message to Congress and the president that we want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet".[94]
New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolbert believes Hansen is "increasingly isolated among climate activists." [95] Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said that "I view Jim Hansen as heroic as a scientist.... But I wish he would stick to what he really knows. Because I don't think he has a realistic idea of what is politically possible..."[95]
New York Times climate columnist Christa Marshall asks if Hansen still matters in the ongoing climate debate, noting that he "has irked many longtime supporters with his scathing attacks against President Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system."[96] "The right wing loves what he's doing," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.[96] Hansen said that he had to speak out, since few others could explain the links between politics and the climate models. "You just have to say what you think is right," he said.[96]

 

[Karl]

What surprises me is that you don't see people in the thread about quantum mechanics throwing wild accusations at CERN researchers, we are all baffled by their entire field. Yet when it's top physicists studying climate (also with great intelligence) people will go to any lengths just to try and discredit their results. There is news coming out that the "faster than light" neutrino result was caused by a loose cable or something, so everyone says "unlucky guys, good work on finding that error so quick", but if it was the IPCC everyone would say "OMG YOUR DISCREDITED NOW BITCHES WTF HOW CAN TOP SCIENTISTS MAKE MISTAKES I THOUGHT THIS WAS PEER REVIEWED I WANT A REFUND GET YOUR HANDS OF MY MONEY WHO ARE YOU FUNDED BY!!!!!!!!"

The guys at CERN don't make predictions with the certainty the IPCC does when they don't have all the facts, or stifle debate by saying the Science is Settled, or pretend that they know everything about the area they work in. The guys at CERN are not ideologues pushing an agenda, they do pure science and publish their results without spin or the intent to influence opinion and policy.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The ideas he presents are published in the mainstream scientific literature. If you don't want to watch the video...fine. But throwing ad-hom attacks isn't a valid reason to reject his publications. If he was making claims which aren't backed up by the vast literature, have a go at them.

...

The guys at CERN don't make predictions with the certainty the IPCC does when they don't have all the facts

The guys are CERN make predictions with high certainty without all the facts (ie: they haven't directly observed the Higgs is there, but they give it a high probability). Which is basically my point.

The IPCC make predictions that can be backed up by the available evidence as well. One thing they say with high confidence is that if we double the atmospheric co2 content the temperature will rise.

I'm not saying they are exactly the same, I'm just pointing out people will swallow whatever particle physicists tell them but outright reject even the most basic, well established facts the IPCC come up with.


edit: come to think of it my original point is that people would call for the end of the IPCC if they made an error similar to that of the LHC crew. Which is pretty much true.

 

[Karl]

I think you're choosing to miss my real point re the difference between CERN scientists and IPCC scientists and applying a lot of spin to the IPCC approach and what people REALLY reject about their pronouncements.

And don't have a crack at me about ad hom attacks, that's pretty standard practice in discrediting anyone who detours from the IPCC "consensus".

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I don't think people reject the "IPCC approach", most people who reject the simple facts they claim don't understand much about the IPCC.

And the 2nd comment amazes me. It's OK to reject what someone is saying using ad-hom's? I give up.

 

[Cutter]

Climate change still a reality despite soggy summer, warns report
David Wroe
March 15, 2012

Mining magnate Clive Palmer says the carbon tax is unconstitutional.

Australia's top climate advisory panel has warned strongly against letting the recent mild and wet weather encourage complacency about climate change, insisting the long-term trend remains as alarming as ever.

Following yesterday's CSIRO report that warned greenhouse gas levels were the highest in 800,000 years, the Climate Commission - a scientific agency set up to inform Australians about global warming - expressed concern in a discussion paper that people were confusing weather patterns with long-term climate change.

The climate commissioner and Australian National University academic Will Steffen said 2011 had been dominated by La Nina, the weather effects produced by cool ocean surface temperatures around the equator in the eastern Pacific.

Advertisement: Story continues below
''After a couple of years, the dams are full, everything is green around you, the soil moisture is topped up,'' Professor Steffen said. ''And you say, 'This is looking pretty good. What happened to all the droughts and dry periods that we thought were associated with climate change? That's a very common perception you hear. But these things are superimposed on a longer, underlying trend.''

La Nina produces cooler average temperatures and higher rainfall in Australia, particularly the east. Last year was the warmest La Nina year on record, even though the La Nina effect was particularly strong, the Climate Commission's report states.

Although 2011 was cooler than all but two of the years between 2000 and 2010, it was still warmer than all but one of the years in the 20th century.

''It shows how rapidly things are actually warming,'' Professor Steffen said. ''Last year was something we now consider cool. Yet just a decade ago … this would've been the second warmest year for 100 years.''

The effect of global warming on average rainfall was more difficult to predict, the commission's report stated.

The two years of 2010 and 2011 set a record of 1409 millimetres of rain averaged over the whole country.

Even still, the two-year wet period has made up for only about a third of the rainfall deficit since 1997. ''We still require many years of wetter than average conditions before we can fully eliminate the rainfall deficit of the big dry,'' it states.

The paper came as a separate report from the Climate Institute, an independently funded think tank, argued Australia could get more out of its carbon pricing scheme - including cheaper emissions cuts and greater environmental benefit - by focusing its carbon trading efforts on neighbours such as Indonesia rather than Europe.

The institute's deputy chief executive, Erwin Jackson, said Australia should be using bilateral or regional trade deals as a model to set up carbon trading links with individual countries, especially developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Trading carbon with Indonesia's energy sector, for example, would deliver Australia cheaper carbon abatement because Indonesia could cut its emissions relatively easily. At the same time, Australia would be leveraging more global action compared with linking to Europe, which already has a carbon scheme.

''By providing export opportunities to Indonesia, it would leverage even more significant action than is currently being contemplated while at the same time providing opportunities to Australian businesses to reduce emissions at lower cost.

''The key challenge for Australia is leveraging greater global ambition because we are very vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Just linking with the EU, while important, doesn't deliver that.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...arns-report-20120314-1v3nn.html#ixzz1p8G8iPwu

 

[Karl]

I don't think people reject the "IPCC approach", most people who reject the simple facts they claim don't understand much about the IPCC.

And the 2nd comment amazes me. It's OK to reject what someone is saying using ad-hom's? I give up.

You guys are constantly ad hom'ing every scientist that disagrees with the IPCC Consensus by stating or implying they are incompetent, corrupt, in denial, lunatic fringe dwellers, in the pay of oil companies or dumber than the IPCC scientists etc and yet when someone criticizes a Warmist Scientist because he's clearly an extremist who has a distinguished record of arrests as an activist and a patchy reputation at best, suddenly you're "amazed".

 

[Karl]

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...arns-report-20120314-1v3nn.html#ixzz1p8G8iPwu

expressed concern in a discussion paper that people were confusing weather patterns with long-term climate change.

- But saying that all the extreme weather events from droughts to hurricanes etc etc are increasing due to Climate Change (despite the evidence they are not) is an AGW Advocates biggest threat. Yet here they are saying weather patterns have nothing to do with it.

I wish someone would make up their minds.

And it's a report from an "Institute" that seems unduly focused on the financial aspects of emissions trading, a handy little industry that doesn't exist without climate scaremongering and legislation around carbon.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The only times I've used ad-hom attacks in this thread, I clearly noted it and mentioned that it's not valid criticism of an idea. Futhermore, I don't think you clearly understand what an ad-hom going by your post.

Let me sum it up. When it comes to any scientific issue, I'll go and read what the leading journals in that field are saying. Whether it's biology, medicine, physics, climate, psychology...whatever. Just because I don't accept all the conflicting fringe theories posted in this thread doesn't mean I'm "ad-homing" them.

But screw that I guess it's all one big conspiracy. Check out this, I googled some of the names in here with "+ socialist" written at the end and guess what, I got over 10,000 hits on each one! http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session32/inf07_p32_ipcc_ar5_authors_review_editors.pdf

Stupid IPCC and their political agenda, the lot of them should be hanged. If only they read the "coolest" blogs instead of actual journal articles, they'd be a lot closer to reality. Temperature rising if greenhouse gas levels rise? What are they smoking LOL!!!! Silly warmists.

 

[Karl]

The last two paragraphs outline a way to select articles and opinions from crackpots. Nothing to do with anything I've been discussing here. Both sides have nutters.

 

[Cutter]

Karl do you find support for your views in scientific journals?

 

[Karl]

I frequently post links from scientific journals.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Which scientific journals support the idea that if we double co2 content in the atmosphere in the next few centuries, the earth will cool down?

(which would prove the IPCC wrong)