Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Next
Comments 8901 to 8950:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:54 AM on 2 December 2019Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
nigelk @28,
In addition to a photon from a higher energy CO2 molecule going in any direction, reducing how much energy 'Goes up and out', the increased movement of CO2 molecules transfers movement energy to other molecules in all directions, so that is also energy that does not continue to 'Go Up and Out'.
Less energy 'going directly up and out' means it will be warmer inside of the stuff that intercepts the energy on its way 'up and out' if there is more of that stuff.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:46 AM on 2 December 2019Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
nigelk @28,
Your description seems pretty close to complete.
The UCAR Center for Science Education explanation of "Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation" is more complete, including the mention of the "Vibation" effect Climate Adam included in his video.
-
michael sweet at 01:08 AM on 2 December 2019CO2 was higher in the past
Livinginawe,
You are way off base. The world was doing fine before humans evolved. Wiping out a large percentage of all living creatures (both animals and plants) does not count as "saving" the planet.
Read some of the historical accounts of how much life existed before humans came to a location. They describe so many fish on the Grand Banks fishery that ships were slowed by running into them and they could be scooped up in baskets from the surface. There were so many whales in the Gulf of St. Lawerence that the noise of them breathing at night made it difficult for sailors to sleep.
Life adapts to slow changes. The problem with AGW is that the change is way to fast for life to evolve (in addition to the many other harmful pollutants humans release).
-
Livinginawe at 23:51 PM on 1 December 2019CO2 was higher in the past
Noting that atmospheric CO2 levels have been falling since the Jurassic period and was approaching a level that some scientist claim cannot support plant life (150 ppm)...Is it possible that mankind has evolved to SAVE the living planet instead of DESTROY it? Of course, we may well bring about our own distruction and most of the animal life on the planet...But wasn't the earth headed for a cold death? Carbon and oxygen has been locked away in carbonaceous sedimentary rock, coal, oil, and methane gas. Alas, along comes man to extract all that carbon and oxygen from the ground and breathe new life into a dying planet.
What are your thoughts? Am I way off base? (I honestly mean no harm and I certainly do not want to start an angry debate...It has just been a curious thought of mine for over twenty years).
-
MA Rodger at 21:04 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
I'm not sure what "critical thinking" blub @47 expects.
Of course, stock market prices are not goverened by physical processes and I have no inkling of the meaning of his terms "robust model" and "accurate." The remaining examples he provides appear to concern a mixture of issues regarding modelling problems or limits to scientific knowledge. I don't see how GCMs relate to any of this, again assuming that is the concern expressed. And that said, you don't even need a GCM to demonstrate GHG-induced Climate Change. I consider the argument set out by the commenter up-thread (all eight comments extant and snipped) appear to be simply arguing that there is no ontological truth, something which is philisophically correct but scientifically flat wrong.
-
Eclectic at 20:58 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub @47 ,
. . . and why haven't we invented anti-gravity yet?
. . . and why not a cure for every cancer?
. . . and biological regeneration to give humans a 1000-year lifespan?
. . . etcetera.
Blub ~ when you have ignited some critical thinking in yourself , then perhaps you will see your way clear to actually discussing the topic of this thread. Rather than hand-waving and discussing confirmation bias (without insight).
-
blub at 19:37 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
This will be my last post on this site in hope of igniting some critical thinking.
If modelling of complex physical processes is robust why don´t we haven´t already predicted high temperature superconducting materials on which we could transfer energy without loss?
Why were we not able to model plasma confinement for the last 60 years to enable nuclear fusion which would enable abundant cheap energy?
Why are there no models to predict stock market moves accurately?
Why are we not able to model even solar cell processes accurately?
Are robust models accurate? -
MA Rodger at 18:43 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @28,
I fear you rely on the commentaries of climate change deniers rather than the source documents they cherry-pick from.
Tom Wigley was taking issue with Kevin Trenberth in 2009 not 1997 (1997 also the date of the hockeystick work) and it was an entirely civilised and understandable interchange (although the actual e-mail thread does suggest that there was some history to the interchange).
Wigley argued that the global temperature evolution 2000-10 could be explained by ENSO, volcano & solar variation (as per Foster & Rahmstorf 2011) but this was not entirely what Trenberth was saying (note the CERES reference). Then Trenberth responds pointing this inexactness out with perhaps allusions to some past interchange.
I fail to see how this 2009 interchange in any way relates to uncertainty in climatology being kept private, unless it is within the febrile mind of a climate change denier.
-
blub at 18:11 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Please get some knowledge on CONFIRMATION BIAS!
All you do is bullying and i am getting moderated? strange site...
-
nigelk at 17:09 PM on 1 December 2019Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
Sorry if this question is too simple.
Am I correct in thinking that the primary mechanism of CO2 heating the atmosphere is
- infrared photon strikes a CO2 molecule
- CO2 molecule moves faster as a result, transferring energy to other molecules in the atmosphere
and the secondary mechanism is
- infrared photon strikes a CO2 molecule
- at some later time, CO2 emits an infrared photon
- if that photon happens to go downwards, it will either strike another CO2 molecule, or strike the earth's surface
thanks
-
Doug_C at 15:30 PM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
We live in the age of Youtube and memes, I don't half understand the appeal, but sitting with my 13 year old nephew and some of his friends and watching them totally enjoy them, I'm guessing Climate Adam is reaching younger people btter than some dry presentations as Nigel says.
As for carbon dioxide, how many times does it need to be explained that it traps heat, that's the issue here. Not whether it is also used in photosynthesis to create the hydrocarbons life on Earth is based on.
Us humans have already killed half the life on Earth and we're heading for eliminating much if not most of the remaining biosphere, it's really hard to see how we're going to survive that kind of ecological collapse.
Understanding extinction — humanity has destroyed half the life on Earth
As Nigel also says, why get sucked into a discussion of whether carbon dioxide is "good" or "bad" when the only issue in regards to catastrophic climate change is whether it traps heat and if it is effective in doing so in the Earth's atmosphere.
All the evidence says that carbon dioxide is highly effective in moderating the Earth heat budget, it's the most important persistent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. If you removed all the CO2 then within decades the water vapour would be gone as well leaving an Earth that is hardly livable.
Increase the atmospheric concentration and Earth warms so rapidly that isotherms migrate poleward so fast most of their associated biotas can't keep up or adapt and they go extinct. When half the Great Barrier Reef dies in two years and with everything else going on with this crisis, should we be wasting any effort pandering to those who would deny your house is on fire just to watch you burn.
-
Eclectic at 13:43 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nigelj @43 = Blub or Blurb ?
Tch, tch, tch . . . please leave the humorous comments to the good Blub.
He is doing very well with the levity & logical legerdemain. Rather than argue any sort of coherent case against AGW, he prefers to deflect into a sophist's jungle of Ultraviolet Catastrophes, Post-Modern Nihilism, Vitamin-C in apples, and the astounding suggestion that the world's climate scientists are ignorant about QM & black body radiation. Goodness me, what next?
I am chuckling as I wait for Blub to explain how String Theory disproves Global Warming by CO2/greenhouse.
-
nigelj at 12:33 PM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Regarding the health dangers of CO2, I recall reading somewhere that a couple of people have died in homes in the UK when they started using new types of highly sealed window joinery units, and airtight house construction, so when people closed all the windows in winter they literally asphyxiated. You really need to leave a few windows open all the time, just very slightly, to prevent both CO2 build up and dampness. If you wake up feeing headachy and sluggish or just bad, its probably high levels of CO2 in the room.
-
nigelj at 12:22 PM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
I have to confess I'm not a huge fan of Climate Adams style, as I have said before, but this is probably a generational thing as I get older. His style would probably connect well with younger people much better than a dry sort of dissertation and hes very genuine.
What concerns me is he gets sucked in to repeating over and over that CO2 is not bad, which is exactly what the denialists want him to say. But very smart people can sometimes be naieve like this.
-
nigelj at 12:10 PM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub, oops apologies for calling you blurb. A typo. Hopefully you can see the funny side of it.
-
BillyJoe at 11:30 AM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Eclectic, thanks. They are not really for me though I'll take a look but something I can recommend. It does looks like they're more for the educated layman than for the general public (and you are right about the low rez early videos!)
Hank, yes I thought I recognised the name and it is these four exchanges that I remember. It was marvellous to see the 20 claims progressivley retracted over the course of those four videos until there was only one left.
-
scaddenp at 11:16 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
"Give me 10-100Million dollars and i will design a model which will show that cimate correlates with anything you want it to correlate..."
Sure. Go to FF companies and put your case. Coming up with an alternative model that excuses them would be fanastic. Of course, FF companies have massive modelling resources themselves (I worked for years on basin modelling) but for some reason choose to spend money on what is politely called PR, rather than trying for an alternative model.
Frankly you are just demonstrating how little you know about how climate models are constructed.
As far as I can see, since the science is doesnt say what you want to hear, you are frantically trying to find excuses for disbelieving the science but are unable to show any actual evidence. Ie you are indulging in motivated reasoning, not critical thinking. Can you think of evidence that would change you mind? If you cannot, then your beliefs are based on your values and identity, not on reason and observations. This is not the site for you. "You cannot reason a person out of a position they were not reasoned into".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:57 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
blub @39,
Review the Most Used Climate Myths on this site (top of left hand side).
Also review the "links by Arguement" under "Resources".
There are plenty of robust examples of "What is not causing the warming". Many of them also are robust examples of "What is not causing the increase of CO2".
Robust evidence indicates what is not happening, as well as indicating what is actually happening.
-
nigelj at 09:46 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blurb @36
"Now I perfectly understand why alarmists are getting more and more heat from all kinds of movements. Not even one reply was actually based on sound understanding of science or refering to my content instead nothing but insults and mantra like repetition of empty arguements like:"
Actually alarmists seem to be getting less and less heat from denialists. Even The Heartland Institute is pulling back a little bit.
Calling your comments incoherent is not an ad hominem. It's a simple fact they are hard to read and decipher.
"So it is with climate models. They are not perfect, everyone knows that, but they are good enough to be taken seriously, especially given whats at stake. = OPINION"
No its not opinion. The implications of climate change for the planet are well documented in the last IPCC report. If you want to arge that its an opinion whether they are serious fair enough, but that doesnt make the science or modelling an opinion. However its hard to see on what basis why any sane person would try to argue climate change is not serious.
"Give me 10-100Million dollars and i will design a model which will show that cimate correlates with anything you want it to correlate..."
It would be a junk model and would likely not be published and would certainly be ridiculed. Denialists have published a few curve fitting models like this and they have not fared very well.
"Nigelj mentions: "There is an understanding of why variations in tree ring growth relate to temperatures, ie causation. You seem utterly confused and incoherent."
No you are quoting me selectively. I said "tree ring proxy data is not based only on correlations between tree rings and temperatures. There is an understanding of why variations in tree ring growth relate to temperatures, ie causation. You seem utterly confused and incoherent."
"Actually you seem confused... Now for the third time: my arguementation was actually not that tree rings in particular are bad proxis, but that proxy studies in general are not confirmed or evident by statistical correlation or robustness and that the thought chain of doing so has no logic or causality. You do not seem to comprehend."
Your two different criticisms both imply tree rings are bad proxies. You are just stating your opinion about proxies with no supporting evidence, just an empty assertion. Proxies have their uses an nobody claims they are highly accurate, thats why they have quite large error bars. Start with looking up tree ring proxies on something like wikipedia below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology
The logic and causality seems obvious enough, here is part of the picture:
"Dendroclimatology is the science of determining past climates from trees (primarily properties of the annual tree rings). Tree rings are wider when conditions favor growth, narrower when times are difficult. Other properties of the annual rings, such as maximum latewood density (MXD) have been shown to be better proxies than simple ring width. Using tree rings, scientists have estimated many local climates for hundreds to thousands of years previous. By combining multiple tree-ring studies (sometimes with other climate proxy records), scientists have estimated past regional and global climates."
-
blub at 09:44 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Hi One Planet Only Forever,
thanks for your kind reply.
You mention: "...you would unlimately not be able to sustain any perceptions you create that do not actually match or reasonably explain the robust diversity of observations and information that is available."
Have you ever considered that this "robust diversity of observations and information" is actually not as robust as you say? And if so wouldn`t the first part of your sentence also aply to WMIP5 models?
Can you elaborate on what actually "robust diversity of observations and information" means in terms of physical causality of climate change?
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:38 AM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
mrkt, that's just an unpublished web document. So not actually a peer-reviewed document of any credibility.
Unlike some previous studies, which had some methodological flaws (like not being published), this study presents a different, sobering look at increases in atmospheric CO2 levels:
"Growing evidence suggests that environmentally relevant elevations in CO2 (<5,000 ppm) may pose direct risks for human health. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations could make adverse exposures more frequent and prolonged through increases in indoor air concentrations and increased time spent indoors.
We review preliminary evidence concerning the potential health risks of chronic exposure to environmentally relevant elevations in ambient CO2, including inflammation, reductions in higher-level cognitive abilities, bone demineralization, kidney calcification, oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction.
This early evidence indicates potential health risks at CO2 exposures as low as 1,000 ppm—a threshold that is already exceeded in many indoor environments with increased room occupancy and reduced building ventilation rates, and equivalent to some estimates for urban outdoor air concentrations before 2100.
Continuous exposure to increased atmospheric CO2 could be an overlooked stressor of the modern and/or future environment. Further research is needed to quantify the major sources of CO2 exposure, to identify mitigation strategies to avoid adverse health effects and protect vulnerable populations, and to fully understand the potential health effects of chronic or intermittent exposure to indoor air with higher CO2 concentrations."
Jacobson et al 2019 - Direct human health risks of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:30 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
blub @36,
"Give me 10-100Million dollars and i will design a model which will show that cimate correlates with anything you want it to correlate..."
I believe you could try but you would unlimately not be able to sustain any perceptions you create that do not actually match or reasonably explain the robust diversity of observations and information that is available.
Dr. Roy Spencer has repeatedly tried to get 'his interpretation of satellite data to indicate temperatures in the atmosphere, not at the planet surface' to prove that global average surface warming is not happening the way the climate science has determined it most likely is happening at the surface. He has had to correct his interpretation many times when the results of his way of interpretting the data failed to make sense. But he persists in trying to make-up any possible claim that warming is not occurring, or is not significant, or is beneficial even those everyone with increased awareness and understanding of what is going on 'actually knows better'.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:28 AM on 1 December 2019Sea level rise is exaggerated
Not sure what your definition of "uniformly even" is. Did you expect them to be so?
Firstly, global sea level rise is a global average and the surface of the oceans are anything but level (the surface of the oceans follow the gravitic shape of the Earth and are also subject to solar, lunar, sloshing and siphoning effects and oceanic oscillations, etc, all of which need to be controlled for).
From the NCA4, global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993:
From NOAA STAR NESDIS:
"Only altimetry measurements between 66°S and 66°N have been processed. An inverted barometer has been applied to the time series. The estimates of sea level rise do not include glacial isostatic adjustment effects on the geoid, which are modeled to be +0.2 to +0.5 mm/year when globally averaged."
Regional SLR graphics are also available from NOAA STAR NESDIS, here.
This is a screenshot of NOAA's tide gauge map for the Western Pacific (NOAA color-codes the relative changes in sea levels to make it easier to internalize):
Clicking on the Funafuti, Tuvalu tide gauge station we see that sea levels are rising by 3.74 mm/yr (above the global average) there, with a time series starting around 1978 and ending about 2011:
However, the time series used by your BOM link for Funafuti (1993-2019) is shorter and the BOM also does not apply a linear trend line to it like NOAA does:
Feel free to make further comparisons, but comparing a set of graphics with no trend lines vs those with trend lines is no comparison at all.
From the recent IPCC Special Report 2019 - Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate - Summary for Policy Makers, September 25, 2019 release (SROCC 2019), the portions on sea level rise:Observed Physical Changes
A3. Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising, with acceleration in recent decades due to increasing rates of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (very high confidence), as well as continued glacier mass loss and ocean thermal expansion. Increases in tropical cyclone winds and rainfall, and increases in extreme waves, combined with relative sea level rise, exacerbate extreme sea level events and coastal hazards (high confidence).A3.1 Total GMSL rise for 1902–2015 is 0.16 m (likely range 0.12–0.21 m). The rate of GMSL rise for 2006–2015 of 3.6 mm yr–1 (3.1–4.1 mm yr–1, very likely range), is unprecedented over the last century (high confidence), and about 2.5 times the rate for 1901–1990 of 1.4 mm yr–1 (0.8– 2.0 mm yr–1, very likely range). The sum of ice sheet and glacier contributions over the period 2006–2015 is the dominant source of sea level rise (1.8 mm yr–1, very likely range 1.7–1.9 mm yr–1), exceeding the effect of thermal expansion of ocean water (1.4 mm yr–1, very likely range 1.1–1.7 mm yr–1) (very high confidence). The dominant cause of global mean sea level rise since 1970 is anthropogenic forcing (high confidence).
A3.2 Sea-level rise has accelerated (extremely likely) due to the combined increased ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (very high confidence). Mass loss from the Antarctic ice sheet over the period 2007–2016 tripled relative to 1997–2006. For Greenland, mass loss doubled over the same period (likely, medium confidence).
A3.3 Acceleration of ice flow and retreat in Antarctica, which has the potential to lead to sea-level rise of several metres within a few centuries, is observed in the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica and in Wilkes Land, East Antarctica (very high confidence). These changes may be the onset of an irreversible (recovery time scale is hundreds to thousands of years) ice sheet instability. Uncertainty related to the onset of ice sheet instability arises from limited observations, inadequate model representation of ice sheet processes, and limited understanding of the complex interactions between the atmosphere, ocean and the ice sheet.
A3.4 Sea-level rise is not globally uniform and varies regionally. Regional differences, within ±30% of the global mean sea-level rise, result from land ice loss and variations in ocean warming and circulation. Differences from the global mean can be greater in areas of rapid vertical land movement including from local human activities (e.g. extraction of groundwater). (high confidence)
A3.5 Extreme wave heights, which contribute to extreme sea level events, coastal erosion and flooding, have increased in the Southern and North Atlantic Oceans by around 1.0 cm yr–1 and 0.8 cm yr–1 over the period 1985–2018 (medium confidence). Sea ice loss in the Arctic has also increased wave heights over the period 1992–2014 (medium confidence).
A3.6 Anthropogenic climate change has increased observed precipitation (medium confidence), winds (low confidence), and extreme sea level events (high confidence) associated with some tropical cyclones, which has increased intensity of multiple extreme events and associated cascading impacts (high confidence). Anthropogenic climate change may have contributed to a poleward migration of maximum tropical cyclone intensity in the western North Pacific in recent decades related to anthropogenically-forced tropical expansion (low confidence). There is emerging evidence for an increase in annual global proportion of Category 4 or 5 tropical cyclones in recent decades (low confidence).
B3. Sea level continues to rise at an increasing rate. Extreme sea level events that are historically rare (once per century in the recent past) are projected to occur frequently (at least once per year) at many locations by 2050 in all RCP scenarios, especially in tropical regions (high confidence). The increasing frequency of high water levels can have severe impacts in many locations depending on exposure (high confidence). Sea level rise is projected to continue beyond 2100 in all RCP scenarios. For a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5), projections of global sea level rise by 2100 are greater than in AR5 due to a larger contribution from the Antarctic Ice Sheet (medium confidence). In coming centuries under RCP8.5, sea level rise is projected to exceed rates of several centimetres per year resulting in multi-metre rise (medium confidence), while for RCP2.6 sea level rise is projected to be limited to around 1m in 2300 (low confidence). Extreme sea levels and coastal hazards will be exacerbated by projected increases in tropical cyclone intensity and precipitation (high confidence). Projected changes in waves and tides vary locally in whether they amplify or ameliorate these hazards (medium confidence).
B3.1 The global mean sea level (GMSL) rise under RCP2.6 is projected to be 0.39 m (0.26–0.53 m, likely range) for the period 2081–2100, and 0.43 m (0.29–0.59 m, likely range) in 2100 with respect to 1986–2005. For RCP8.5, the corresponding GMSL rise is 0.71 m (0.51–0.92 m, likely range) for 2081–2100 and 0.84 m (0.61–1.10 m, likely range) in 2100. Mean sea level rise projections are higher by 0.1 m compared to AR5 under RCP8.5 in 2100, and the likely range extends beyond 1 m in 2100 due to a larger projected ice loss from the Antarctic Ice Sheet (medium confidence). The uncertainty at the end of the century is mainly determined by the ice sheets, especially in Antarctica.
B3.2 Sea level projections show regional differences around GMSL. Processes not driven by recent climate change, such as local subsidence caused by natural processes and human activities, are important to relative sea level changes at the coast (high confidence). While the relative importance of climate-driven sea level rise is projected to increase over time, local processes need to be considered for projections and impacts of sea level (high confidence).
Projected Changes and Risks
B3.3 The rate of global mean sea level rise is projected to reach 15 mm yr–1 (10–20 mm yr–1, likely range) under RCP8.5 in 2100, and to exceed several centimetres per year in the 22nd century. Under RCP2.6, the rate is projected to reach 4 mm yr-1 (2–6 mm yr–1, likely range) in 2100. Model studies indicate multi-meter rise in sea level by 2300 (2.3–5.4 m for RCP8.5 and 0.6–1.07 m under RCP2.6) (low confidence), indicating the importance of reduced emissions for limiting sea level rise. Processes controlling the timing of future ice-shelf loss and the extent of ice sheet instabilities could increase Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise to values substantially higher than the likely range on century and longer time-scales (low confidence). Considering the consequences of sea level rise that a collapse of parts of the Antarctic Ice Sheet entails, this high impact risk merits attention.B3.4 Global mean sea level rise will cause the frequency of extreme sea level events at most locations to increase. Local sea levels that historically occurred once per century (historical centennial events) are projected to occur at least annually at most locations by 2100 under all RCP scenarios (high confidence). Many low-lying megacities and small islands (including SIDS) are projected to experience historical centennial events at least annually by 2050 under RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The year when the historical centennial event becomes an annual event in the mid-latitudes occurs soonest in RCP8.5, next in RCP4.5 and latest in RCP2.6. The increasing frequency of high water levels can have severe impacts in many locations depending on the level of exposure (high confidence).
B3.5 Significant wave heights (the average height from trough to crest of the highest one-third of waves) are projected to increase across the Southern Ocean and tropical eastern Pacific (high confidence) and Baltic Sea (medium confidence) and decrease over the North Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea under RCP8.5 (high confidence). Coastal tidal amplitudes and patterns are projected to change due to sea level rise and coastal adaptation measures (very likely). Projected changes in waves arising from changes in weather patterns, and changes in tides due to sea level rise, can locally enhance or ameliorate coastal hazards (medium confidence).
B3.6 The average intensity of tropical cyclones, the proportion of Category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones and the associated average precipitation rates are projected to increase for a 2°C global temperature rise above any baseline period (medium confidence). Rising mean sea levels will contribute to higher extreme sea levels associated with tropical cyclones (very high confidence). Coastal hazards will be exacerbated by an increase in the average intensity, magnitude of storm surge and precipitation rates of tropical cyclones. There are greater increases projected under RCP8.5 than under RCP2.6 from around mid-century to 2100 (medium confidence). There is low confidence in changes in the future frequency of tropical cyclones at the global scale.
Challenges
C3. Coastal communities face challenging choices in crafting context-specific and integrated responses to sea level rise that balance costs, benefits and trade-offs of available options and that can be adjusted over time (high confidence). All types of options, including protection, accommodation, ecosystem-based adaptation, coastal advance and retreat, wherever possible, can play important roles in such integrated responses (high confidence).C3.1. The higher the sea levels rise, the more challenging is coastal protection, mainly due to economic, financial and social barriers rather than due to technical limits (high confidence). In the coming decades, reducing local drivers of exposure and vulnerability such as coastal urbanization and human-induced subsidence constitute effective responses (high confidence). Where space is limited, and the value of exposed assets is high (e.g., in cities), hard protection (e.g., dikes) is likely to be a cost-efficient response option during the 21st century taking into account the specifics of the context (high confidence), but resource-limited areas may not be able to afford such investments. Where space is available, ecosystem-based adaptation can reduce coastal risk and provide multiple other benefits such as carbon storage, improved water quality, biodiversity conservation and livelihood support (medium confidence).
C3.2 Some coastal accommodation measures, such as early warning systems and flood-proofing of buildings, are often both low cost and highly cost-efficient under current sea levels (high confidence). Under projected sea level rise and increase in coastal hazards some of these measures become less effective unless combined with other measures (high confidence). All types of options, including protection, accommodation, ecosystem-based adaptation, coastal advance and planned relocation, if alternative localities are available, can play important roles in such integrated responses (high confidence). Where the community affected is small, or in the aftermath of a disaster, reducing risk by coastal planned relocations is worth considering if safe alternative localities are available. Such planned relocation can be socially, culturally, financially and politically constrained (very high confidence).
C3.3 Responses to sea-level rise and associated risk reduction present society with profound governance challenges, resulting from the uncertainty about the magnitude and rate of future sea level rise, vexing trade-offs between societal goals (e.g., safety, conservation, economic development, intra- and inter-generational equity), limited resources, and conflicting interests and values among diverse stakeholders (high confidence). These challenges can be eased using locally appropriate combinations of decision analysis, land-use planning, public participation, diverse knowledge systems and conflict resolution approaches that are adjusted over time as circumstances change (high confidence).
C3.4 Despite the large uncertainties about the magnitude and rate of post 2050 sea level rise, many coastal decisions with time horizons of decades to over a century are being made now (e.g., critical infrastructure, coastal protection works, city planning) and can be improved by taking relative sea-level rise into account, favouring flexible responses (i.e., those that can be adapted over time) supported by monitoring systems for early warning signals, periodically adjusting decisions (i.e., adaptive decision making), using robust decision-making approaches, expert judgement, scenario-building, and multiple knowledge systems (high confidence). The sea level rise range that needs to be considered for planning and implementing coastal responses depends on the risk tolerance of stakeholders. Stakeholders with higher risk tolerance (e.g., those planning for investments that can be very easily adapted to unforeseen conditions) often prefer to use the likely range of projections, while stakeholders with a lower risk tolerance (e.g., those deciding on critical infrastructure) also consider global and local mean sea level above the upper end of the likely range (globally 1.1 m under RCP8.5 by 2100) and from methods characterised by lower confidence such as from expert elicitation.
To sum:
1. Global sea levels continue to rise, with the rise itself accelerating (due to an acceleration in land-based ice sheet mass losses). This will continue, for beyond the lifespans of any now alive.
2. Beware of the eyecrometer. It will deceive you, if you allow it to.
SLR Components, from Cazenave et al 2018
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:19 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @20,
Others have already provided accurate responses.
I wish to add my own 'improvement of the awareness and understanding' to help you appreciate the accurate context and perspective.
You claim I missed the point of your comment because your "... concern was that the hiatus is considered to be something bad by some authors of the emails. It does not need any skeptic here, it is the authors themselfs, hence the terms pschology and political thinking. ... It is about considering good news (less warming) as bad news. Despite of all poralization one would hope that these scientists still want the best for humanity and not see cooling as a problem."
The reason for concerns by climate scientists regarding short-term less rapid temperature rise (hiatus) or short-term cooling is that the they are only short-term events in the temperature data. However, each one is claimed by the worst of the skeptics to be proof that the warming has ended and the science is wrong.
It is almost as bad to try to claim that concerns about any of the many short-term reductions in the rate of temperature rise due to added CO2 in the atmosphere are wrong because 'cooling is Good'.
The Escalator I pointed you to in my earlier comment should have made that clear. Either it was not obvious to you, or you never checked it out. To be clearer, in the escalator it can be seen that at the end of each 'hiatus or cooling event that you claim everyone should be thrilled to see', there is a dramatic step up to the start of the next 'hiatus or cooling event that you claim everyone should be thrilled to see'. Can you see how anyone more aware and understanding of what is really going on would not be Thrilled?
Sustainable Cooling would indeed be Good. But the science is clear that that will only happen if the levels of CO2, and other human generated ghgs, in the atmosphere are reduced. And the reduction of CO2 is almost certain to only happen when the use of fossil fuels is ended.
And until the use of fossil fuels is ended the CO2 and other ghgs will continue to increase. And the science is clear that a 1.5 C total warming is the point beyond which the climate impacts can be very severe. Even a 2.0 C warming is likely to be very hard on the future generations.
And as michael sweet has pointed out there has already been more than 1.0 C of warming with the CO2 only at 410 ppm (a 140 ppm increase from pre-industrial) but is currently rising at more than 20 ppm per decade.
Any claim to see "A cooling trend in the temperature data" without a reduction of CO2 is "Claiming False Hope" (now and in the past), and deserves the be corrected. And promoters of the harmful fictional claims deserve to be ridiculed if they persist in unethically resisting becoming more aware and better understanding.
-
blub at 09:05 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Now I perfectly understand why alarmists are getting more and more heat from all kinds of movements. Not even one reply was actually based on sound understanding of science or refering to my content instead nothing but insults and mantra like repetition of empty arguements like:
Many thousands of climate scientists (with hardly any exceptions) have a bias in the direction of understanding and using the climate data from pyrometers and proxies. The information they produce is internally logically consistent, and (so far) has been pragmatically correct.
what do you even mean by logically consisten? statistcal robustnes? What is pragmatically correct? These are empty phrases. Thousand of people agree on thousands of things everyday in this world. This is not proof of anything.
So it is with climate models. They are not perfect, everyone knows that, but they are good enough to be taken seriously, especially given whats at stake. = OPINION
Give me 10-100Million dollars and i will design a model which will show that cimate correlates with anything you want it to correlate...
Nigelj mentions: "There is an understanding of why variations in tree ring growth relate to temperatures, ie causation. You seem utterly confused and incoherent."
Actually you seem confused... Now for the third time: my arguementation was actually not that tree rings in particular are bad proxis, but that proxy studies in general are not confirmed or evident by statistical correlation or robustness and that the thought chain of doing so has no logic or causality. You do not seem to comprehend.
This discussion is a waste of time. Good luck
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering, ad hominems and inflammatory rhetoric snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
mrkt at 08:44 AM on 1 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
The following seems to be a fairly thorough reveiw of CO2 toxicity.
Carbon dioxide toxicity and climate change: a serious unapprehended risk for human health.
P.N. Bierwirth, PhD
Emeritus Faculty
Australian National UniversityFirst draft - Web Posted 25 February, 2014
Current Version – 23 Dec 2016
Web Published: ResearchGate DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.16787.48168https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a53f/3a6f7a0db8cfd006c51f19c76a68f3386f7e.pdf
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:38 AM on 1 December 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48
nigel southway,
Human activity resulting in accumulating impacts that are likely to produce negative consequences is an accurate description of the impacts of excess CO2 added to the environment by the burning of ancient hydrocarbons.
Claiming "It is not pollution" does not change the reality.
Policies to curtail the use of fossil fuels are not in the interests of developed perceptions of superioriy in the Western World. Those policies are in the interests of the future of humanity.
In summary, all of the Sustainable Development Goals are a very robustly established set of objectives required to be achieved for humanity to have a lasting future that will actually be able to be sustainably improved.
Some perceptions of superiority need to be corrected to achieve those goals. Those corrections are undeniably Good Things no matter how disappointed some developed interests in the Western World become as a result of their achievement.
Truly sustainable perceptions of superiority are not at risk. Only the unsustainable ones have to be worried about. And those worriers should not deter responsible leadership from enacting the policies required to help achieve all of the Sustainable Development Goals, especially the Climate Action goal because achieving that one quicker makes it easier to sustainably achieve the Others.
-
nigelj at 08:26 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub @20, just because something could be wrong doesn't mean it is wrong, so prove the greenhouse effect is wrong by submitting a research paper, and stop filling up this website with sophistry. Even Einsteins theories may have some problems in them because they can't be reconciled with quantum theory, but they are good enough to do all sorts of reliable calculations. So it is with climate models. They are not perfect, everyone knows that, but they are good enough to be taken seriously, especially given whats at stake.
-
nigelj at 08:18 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
NYood @28
"This is another example from 2009 where uncertainty is expressed, but must never be admitted in public"
I strongly disagree. Of course there will be uncertainties and scientists are not going to publish their every utterance, just like you or anyone wouldn't, but the IPCC reports openly admit areas of uncertainty and in painstaking detail and pedantry. Read the summary for policy makers.
It's the sceptics who have never admitted uncertainty about their sceptical positions, and who have the most politiciesd processes, eg The Heartland Institute promotes climate scepticism and is a right wing political think tank, that tries to influence processes and other organisations. There are many similar organisations eg the GWPF. You cannot get more politicised than that, by any definition of political.
-
nigelj at 08:09 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blurb @19, tree ring proxy data is not based only on correlations between tree rings and temperatures. There is an understanding of why variations in tree ring growth relate to temperatures, ie causation. You seem utterly confused and incoherent.
-
nigelj at 07:41 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Sorry for repeating some stuff mentioned by MS @27. Missed that post somehow.
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @23, I hear you about Wigley but you are not seeing the bigger picture. He has ultimately been proven incorrect by the longer passage of time, so the obvious increasing temperatures since 2014, and the increasing levels of concern coming from the IPCC and most of the climate science community.
You are also again taking a few comments by a couple of scientists utterly out of context, and also assuming this somehow represents thousands of scientists and you just cannot do that. There is no rigour in your 'scepticism'.
Again the emails you list are no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Scientists argue and bicker like anyone, and will obviously not like some junk science being published. Of course they are political in terms of talking about processes and organisational issues, anyone is, and this is a far cry from letting personal party politics intrude.
You have no smoking guns, no fraud or serious errors, no party politics, nothing, so your comments look more and more like paranoia to me.
You say "This is wrong to me, ten years ago we were estimating with a warming of 3°C, now we have come to the lowest threshold of 1,5°C. To me the explanoray power of the IPCC declines towards none."I assume you are talking about climate sensitivity. You are wrong. The IPCC has not said climate senstivity is at the lower threshold of 1.5 degrees, and you provide no internet link to where they have said that.
All the IPCC have said is climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees. Most published research is around 3 degrees, and the latest modelling also finds this. Papers finding climate sensitivity of 1.5 degrees have not been widely accepted and have flaws. Some relevant material:
skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge
"The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere....I do not want such peolpe (Mann) to advise our gouverments, can you understand that?"
You say you don't want people like Mann advising governments, despite the fact he has exposed some real problems with the Soon and Balinaus paper and the peer review process at that point. You make no sense at all. You should be thanking Mann, not criticising him. It's his job to identify problems, as well as do research.
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @20
"If the IPCC wishes it will get warmer or stay hot, just because they will be right is demasking and reduces integrity."
I think you have just misinterpreted things a bit. The IPCC don't wish it to remain hot. Let me explain. The IPCC have always stated that the temperature trend going forwards will be a positive trend of largely increasing temperatures on 30 years plus timeframes, and out to 2100, but it will have periods of flat or slightly declining temperatures of about 10 years due to the intermittent effects of ocean and sunspot cycles. So the IPCC have always accepted there will be some small cooling periods.
The so called pause after 1998 had scientists puzzled, because it looked like it was lasting more than 10 years, and there was no obvious explanation at the time, thats all. It ended with the high temperatures of 2o15 - 2018, and has been explained by certain ocean processes and some bad temperature data that underestimated temperatures. If you look at any temperature dataset the pause is just a flattening off around 2002 - 2010.
Claiming these flat periods are desirable is a nonsense. They are just inevitable and there will probably be more, but they will be temporary because they are a natural cycle intruding on the underlying warming from greenhouse gases.
-
blub at 02:40 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Hi Eclectic,
how do I justify this "bias"? (don´t know if "bias" is the right word here). Physics is purely based on descriptive models, which means if you ask why is something happening the answer will always be because instrumental data from perfectly designed and controlled experiments made us develop a model which discribes experiment inside a certain framework and not we have developed a statisitcal relevant model where we can draw conclusion, opinion or facts, which have never been proven in a controlled experiemts with every influencing parameter is either observable or identified as an unobservable.
You mention: Likewise, the classical Newtonian mechanics provide a pragmatically correct usage for almost all human activities.
You are probably familiar with the development of quantum mechanics. One of the first experiments indicating the newton mechanics is not pragmatic but just plain incorrect in a lot of cases are experiemts on black body radiation. According to newton mechanics the radiativ spectrum from black body radiation should show a UV catastrophy, which just never happened, but could be resolved by a much more sophisticated model namely quantum mechanics. Ironically the EM radiation of our sun is described by quantum mechanical black body radiation. Apply newton mechanics and you would need a lot of sun screen here on earth ;) I just want to highlight how data and models are applied in physics and can be missleading if generalised or too complex or not well understood or error prone. In science if somebody claims something as fact or undisputable good scientists usally start to question, do experiments and very seldomly judge and not the other way around... as history has shown this process can take hundreds of years depending on technology, experiment and data available.
-
nyood at 02:16 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
MA Rodger @25
You try to relativise the harsh critic by Wigley with the concluding sentence:
"Wigley's response is robust because that is how academics fire off at each other."
To me, you attempt to downplay the criticism here and putting the email in a larger context like you did with your post, does not change its explanatory power whatsoever.
The message of Wigley is crystal clear, alarmed and referring to general scientific principles and ethics and exactly the high responsibility we are talking about. Therefore, other users already tried to discredit Wigley himself as obsolete and dangerous, standing in the way of the 11; skipping your attempt of just downplaying the message of Wigley.
What Wigley foresees here is the onset of political thinking and acting, documented by numerous emails of the coming years. Wigleys apprehensions will be confirmed and peak with Mann´s Hockeystick.
This is another example from 2009 where uncertainty is expressed, but must never be admitted in public:
M.Mann to K.Trenberth:
"Thanks Kevin, yes, it’s a matter of what question one is asking. To argue that the observed global average temperatures of the past decade falsifythe model projections ..., as the contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. But that doesn’t mean we can explain exactly what’s going on."
T.Wigley continues:
"Kevin,I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different things—the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking."
-
michael sweet at 01:12 AM on 1 December 2019There is no consensus
For a follow up to my post at 851 on being fooled by lies:
While I do not know all the data and can be fooled by deliberate lies, I find that between my friends Eclectic, DB, Bob Loblaw and the other posters here at SkS, someone recognizes the lie and links to the actual data. All of us have different interests and are knowledgable about different facets of climate change. We have strength in numbers to fight deliberate propaganda.
-
Eclectic at 01:00 AM on 1 December 2019Welcome to Skeptical Science
Markovnikov, if you enter the name "Wrightstone" in the search box [top left], you get a couple of entries for April 2019.
The second one ( 27th April) takes you to a recent lengthy piece by Willard MacDonald, discussing the extensive disinformational propaganda by Wrightstone.
It sounds like Wrightstone is someone who can't even lie straight in bed. So I think you will be completely wasting your time if you are trying to understand whatever mathematics he is proposing. It is the same case with Monckton ~ who generates specious (and ultimately wrong) grand calculations "showing how the world's scientists are all wrong". Every year or two, it's a new doozy.
-
michael sweet at 00:47 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Most of your post is simply repeating the arguments used when the climate gate emails first came out. These were all shown to be false many years ago. Your posts are just sloganeering old denier points.
You claim additionally
"This is wrong to me, ten years ago we were estimating with a warming of 3°C, now we have come to the lowest threshold of 1,5°C. To me the explanoray power of the IPCC declines towards none."
This claim is simply false and uninformed. The 1.5C threshold in the SR5 report was based solely on analysis of the "pause" data. The past 5 years of data have demonstrated conclusively that that analysis was incorrect. Getting all worked up and angry about false claims does not help to solve any problems. You are reading too many denier web sites who deliberately lie to you.
Currently the world temperature is 1.2C above pre-industrial. We are only at 410 ppm CO2 and doubling is 540 ppm. There is at least 0.5C warming in the pipeline. We are already far over 1.0C heating you suggest for doubling and are nowhere near doubling carbon.
The claim of low sensitivity was never very strong and it has been proven incorrect by the increase in temperature. Very unfortunately, recent modeling studies have found that the best fit is from models with sensitivities over 4.5C. Pray that those studies are incorrect since if they pan out we are already far past any reasonable threshold for disaster.
-
Eclectic at 00:41 AM on 1 December 2019There is no consensus
Michael, the claims of Klmartinson are in the category of "amusing".
I am reasonably sure that even he himself doesn't believe them.
-
michael sweet at 00:27 AM on 1 December 2019There is no consensus
To all posters:
Moderator DB posted data that shows klmartinson's claim that
"last winter in continental USA was the coldest in 110 years. I don't understand how we can have "record heat" and yet have "record cold seasons"
was simply made up. I note that several informed posters replied to this claim as if it were actually correct. This shows how difficult it is to argue with deniers: they simply lie about data to support their wild claims. No-one can know all the data so all of us can be fooled. data that is numerical and very specific ("coldest in 110 years") is genrally aclcepted as from a reliable source.
My questions to klmartinson: who told you this deliberate lie? Why do you believe them?
-
Eclectic at 00:12 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub @24 ,
You are giving the message that your own bias is to not draw any conclusions from data and models. But how do you justify that bias?
Many thousands of climate scientists (with hardly any exceptions) have a bias in the direction of understanding and using the climate data from pyrometers and proxies. The information they produce is internally logically consistent, and (so far) has been pragmatically correct.
Likewise, the classical Newtonian mechanics provide a pragmatically correct usage for almost all human activities, and the Einsteinian and Quantum Mechanics corrections are not usually required. Are you proposing that we stop using Newtonian concepts? I suspect you are not really proposing that action.
Blub, we have to be practical.
-
Markovnikov at 00:11 AM on 1 December 2019Welcome to Skeptical Science
Sorry if this has been discussed above. I scanned the earlier posts but may have missed it.
A commenter in our local newspaper cited a posting by Wrightstone in which he (Wrightstone) claims to have used a program called MAGICC Climate Simulator to show that even if CO2 emissions were cut to zero, the change in global temperature increase would be negligible. Does anyone have a link regarding this?
My gut feeling is that Wrightstone has set the input into the program to produce the results he wants and then uses the fact that the program was produced by a government lab to give credibility to his calculations.
The link to Wrightstone's calculations is https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/magicc-simulator?fbclid=IwAR0VEQ6B_g5UoYv5SzXH4bXLyJt3nMF3D8LFd3aMWOSkzy_AO8GoC_UYQyw
Thanks for any help you can give.
-
MA Rodger at 00:02 AM on 1 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
This 'deep understanding' by Tom Wigley being protrayed in this thread based on his 1997 e-mail is pure fantasy. The e-mail is presented upthread @12 with passages missing. A full presentation of the e-mail exposes a situation where Wigley's grand work is potentially being rendered obsolete by the call for 'immediate control' of emissions. Wigley's response is robust because that is how academics fire off at each other.
And to put this ancient interchange into context, the argument was how to time the reduction of emissions when the target is 550ppm(v) and the limit to global AGW was seen as +2.0ºC; thus whether it made much difference if BAU was allowed to run until 2000, 2010, or 2020 before emissions reigned them in. Today, we are marginally ahead of the BAU secnario set out by Wigley while 2020 is upon us with stricter limits to AGW now in play. As for Wigley's grand work, it rather fell from grace although Wigley did revive oit following COP15 at Paris - note that there is no longer any delay to emissions control mentioned in Wigley (2017) but that the scenarios show cuts immediate to 2015 and also only consider FF emissions.
-
Hank11198 at 23:40 PM on 30 November 2019CO2 lags temperature
Looking at figure 2 the global temperature shows an increase of 3.5C and a CO2 increase of about 1.5. This would indicate a higher climate sensitivity that the 3.0C per the IPCC. Is this just one of the calculations that shows a higher climate sensitivity?
Also the global temperature change is 3.5C while the Antarctic temperature change is 2.0C. Doesn’t temperature change increase as the area included decreases (global vs more local)?
-
blub at 23:29 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Hi Eclectic,
I am confused of the two responses to my post so far. In the first post I opened a discussion about this article showing Fig.1 of a reconstruction study on global temp variation of the last 2000 years for confirmation of the robustness of proxy studies on temp variation. I highlighted the basis of this study (proxies) and the authors own awareness of bias and proxy problems. In my point of view care has to be taken to use this study and proxy studies in general as an example for confirmation, evidence or "fact" on human induced global warming and I tried to explain difficulties of statistical based data interpretation in the scope of too few and error prone data and error prone modeling because of the physical complexity of climate.
You mention: "but the major ones are alterations of insolation / greenhouse gasses / aerosols. That is well known."
That is well known is actually an opinion of people. Newton mechanics was well known, statistically robust and widely accepted before instrumental experiemtation and data collection advanced leading to clarification and advancement into quantum mechanics. This is how physics works. Now, climate from a physical point of view is one of the most complex and abstract experiments ever made with an uncounteable number of physical processes influencing temperature over a time frame from pico seconds to thousands of years.
I personally would not draw any conclusions, facts, predictions or recomendations from the data and models present... This is why for me it seems that bias is present.
-
Hank11198 at 23:05 PM on 30 November 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
I agree with Billy Joe about this presenter being annoying. But more importantly it seems to me he is trying to use comedy to discuss climate change. I can’t find any humor in what we are doing to the planet.
Eclectic is right about Potholer54. It has great videos. In addition to debunking Monckton Bunkum, the 4 back and forth interchanges with Tony Heller who operates realclimatescience is just a pleasure to watch. One by one he demolishes Tony’s erroneous climate change statements until Tony refuses to continue the debate. And he does this all without making the audience feel like he is in an attack mode.
-
nyood at 22:47 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nigelj @16
T.Wigley was not proven incorrect, quite the opposite for two reasons:
1: His concern was confirmed with hundreds of emails of the following decade. Here are two more examples: M.Mann to E.Cook:
"I don’t in any way doubt yours and Jan’s integrity here.I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publicly, by some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review. Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil and his co-workers; this is dangerous. I think there are some legitimate issues that need to be sorted out ....I’d be interested to be kept posted on what the status of the manuscript is."
E.Cooks reply:
"Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least blood close to it."
And E.Cook to K.Biffa:
"Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here)"
2. You state that Wrigley was wrong since it turned out he was hindering the 11 on their path to prove warming is manmade and a threat.
This is wrong to me, ten years ago we were estimating with a warming of 3°C, now we have come to the lowest threshold of 1,5°C. To me the explanoray power of the IPCC declines towards none.
I want to remind here that in my original post i was saying that climategate reveals the extent in which the thinking is political and strategical within the IPCC. Wrigley seems to realize this early on.
I do not want the IPCC to fight an information war for us. The emails show countless concerns, predominantly expressed by M.Mann towards skeptics publishing stuff in Natur, Science and alike.
The public and media perception of the global warming issue seems to be the dominant task for M.Mann.
The science itself is not in focus anymore, focus shifted towards: "What is the public thinking" and "How can we make our enemies look bad or hinder them from publishing".
This is evidenced by numerous emails where certain media is considered "on our side" while others are considered "lost" to the skeptics:
P.Jones to M.Mann:
"Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something ...I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A ClimaticResearch Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch."
M.Mann replies:
"The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Freitas; unfortunately, I think this group also includes a member of my own department... The skeptics appear to have staged a “coup” at Climate Research (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite “purpose”)."
I do not want such peolpe to advise our gouverments, can you understand that?
According to you and pretty much all alarmists, skeptics should be clowns, it should be easy to crush them in debates. There should be no reason to fear them this much. Ironically the fierce fight against skeptics makes them stronger, giving them meaning.
This happened over and over in history.
-
Eclectic at 22:47 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nyood @20 ,
you are missing the point: that both the scientist group and the anti-scientist group are wishing it would get colder.
Clearly you are having trouble understanding the scientists' emails.
-
Eclectic at 22:42 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Blub ,
in reading your posts #13 and #19 , it is not at all clear what point you are wishing to make. Please clarify !
Average readers here (such as me) are aware of data and correlations and causalities.
Basically, the climate changes when something causes it to change. And yes, there are many factors or drivers affecting climate ~ but the major ones are alterations of insolation / greenhouse gasses / aerosols. That is well known.
Are you saying that some confirmation bias is affecting your own views on climate?
So far, you have (in a general way) touched on abstract concepts and the difficulties of achieving valid scientific knowledge (such as the well-researched PAGES 2K studies) . . . but you have not actually given any empirical or logical disproof of the extensive PAGES 2K information.
Please be clear about the message you are trying to convey.
-
nyood at 21:21 PM on 30 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
One Planet Only Forever @18
You are missing the point. My concern was that the hiatus is considered to be something bad by some authors of the emails. It does not need any skeptic here, it is the authors themselfs, hence the terms pschology and political thinking.
So it is not about skeptics abusing the hiatus.
It is not about reasoning why the haitus happened.
It is about considering good news (less warming) as bad news.
Despite of all poralization one would hope that these scientists still want the best for humanity and not see cooling as a problem.
If skeptics wish that it will be colder, just because they are "more" right is demasking, almost childish.
If the IPCC wishes it will get warmer or stay hot, just because they will be right is demasking and reduces integrity.
Prev 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Next
