Page 13 of 14

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:36 pm
by WetEV
RegGuheert wrote:
downeykp wrote:Evans was roundly debunked back in 2008 after he brought his claims to the media.
Amazing! That's particularly incredible since he didn't start posting about his work until September, 2015.


27 June 2014

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-ne ... l-cooling/

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:57 pm
by WetEV
RegGuheert wrote:
downeykp wrote:Evans was roundly debunked back in 2008 after he brought his claims to the media.
Amazing! That's particularly incredible since he didn't start posting about his work until September, 2015.


https://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocke ... avid-evans

Points to much older work in 2008.

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:59 pm
by downeykp
Well Reg, in the event that I forgot how to read, the article I posted speaks of your climate clown in 1988.There is also an article in the Financial Post from April 7, 2011. You might want to actually read something before your cookie cutter graphs from the AEI get posted here.

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:39 am
by WetEV
RegGuheert wrote:But you guys don't seem to care about the complete inability of the current models to make accurate predictions.


Accurate and meaningful are two different things.
The exact is the enemy of the good enough.

Climate models have been good enough for a long time.

Climate models can be, and have been tested by comparing with past climates: such as the peak of the last ice advance. CO2 level less than half of today's 407 PPM in climate models predicts a much colder climate, cold enough for glaciers reaching New York. CO2 level about four times today's 407 PPM was present in the Early Eocene, but climate models don't do as well then. The climate models tend to get the Early Eocene Equatorial areas too hot, and/or the polar areas too cold. So yes, the models are not exact. Burning all the fossil fuels gets us to a warmer climate than the Early Eocene, due to solar brightening and a higher CO2 level. We don't need a climate model to find out what happens next. We look at what happened the last time. The Arctic was about as warm in summer as Florida is today. Florida was someplace around the lethal for vertebrates (fish, birds, reptiles and mammals) temperature of 40C dew point.

The Eocene polar areas can be best described by looking at fossils from the Canadian Arctic. About as close to the North Pole as there is land. Currently barely gets above freezing in summer. But in the Eocene, and other past hot, high CO2 periods, was about 10C in winter, and 30C in summer.

For example this:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40510749?s ... b_contents

Full text is at:

http://hdl.handle.net/10515/sy5fj29g9


The remains of a fossil forest are buried within a sedimentary sequence of Eocene age (approximately 50 million years old) near Strathcona Fiord, Ellesmere Island. Large petrified tree stumps are preserved in their original growth positions in coals of the Eureka Sound Group, a sequence of sandstones, siltstones and coals deposited in a delta/floodplain environment. The dimensions of 83 stumps were recorded and their positions plotted on a plan of the exposed area of coal. The fossil stumps are roughly conical in shape, up to 1.8 m high and with roots spreading up to 5 m in diameter. They are closely spaced on the coal, some only 1 m apart. A density of 1 stump in 27 m^2 (367 stumps Ha^-1) was calculated for this forest. The stumps represent large forest trees that grew in freshwater, swampy conditions between large river channels. Their buttressed roots provided extra support in the waterlogged peats. The rivers periodically shifted their courses, flooding the forests and burying them under silts and sands. Wide growth rings in the fossil wood, in addition to evidence from associated sediments and vertebrate faunas, indicate favourable growing conditions in a mild, cool/warm temperate climate with high rainfall. Palaeolatitude studies suggest that the forest lay close to its present high-latitude position during the Eocene. Such a forest is therefore evidence that the Eocene polar climate was much warmer than today and that the trees were able to tolerate a polar sunlight regime of continuous summer sunlight followed by months of winter darkness.

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:36 am
by lorenfb
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/?wpmp_tp=1

Comparing models to the satellite datasets


So what?
Let’s remember the point here. We compare models and observations to learn something about the real world, not just to score points in some esoteric debate. So how does a better representation of the results help? Firstly, while the apparent differences are reduced in the updated presentation, they have not disappeared. But understanding how large the real differences actually are puts us in a better position to look for plausible reasons for them.


But Christy also ignores the importance of what forcings were used in the CMIP5 simulations. In work we did on the surface temperatures in CMIP5 and the real world, it became apparent that the forcings used in the models, particularly the solar and volcanic trends after 2000, imparted a warm bias in the models (up to 0.1ºC or so in the ensemble by 2012), which combined with the specific sequence of ENSO variability, explained most of the model-obs discrepancy in GMST. This result is not simply transferable to the TMT record (since the forcings and ENSO have different fingerprints in TMT than at the surface), but similar results will qualitatively hold. Alternative explanations – such as further structural uncertainty in the satellites, perhaps associated with the AMSU sensors after 2000, or some small overestimate of climate sensitivity in the model ensemble are plausible, but as yet there is no reason to support these ideas over the (known) issues with the forcings and ENSO. Some more work is needed here to calculate the TMT trends with updated forcings (soon!), and that will help further clarify things. With 2016 very likely to be the warmest year on record in the satellite observations the differences in trend will also diminish.


So at best, we have a "work-in-progress" model!

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:55 am
by RegGuheert
WetEV wrote:Also it was predicted that coral reefs would die.

Huge sections of the Great Barrier Reef, stretching across hundreds of miles of its most pristine northern sector, were recently found to be dead, killed last year by overheated seawater. More southerly sections around the middle of the reef that barely escaped then are bleaching now, a potential precursor to another die-off that could rob some of the reef’s most visited areas of color and life.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/scie ... ieoff.html
Local divers checked out this claim and found that it was a complete fabrication. In fact, they found that only about 5% of the reefs are dead:
The local divers, however, used their own money and spent two weeks surveying 28 sites on 24 outer reef shelves ARC said were decimated. They found the reefs looked identical to how they did twenty years ago. Despite alarmist headlines of a mass bleaching event, they found no changes in two decades. They said the discrepancy between what they found (five percent damage) and what was being reported was “phenomenal.”
Just another major hit to the credibility of the mainstream media and government-funded organizations.

In other words, this is another failed prediction of the climate alarmist that is being backed up by falsified data.

By now you would think most people would know to reject ALL alarmist claims until they can be verified by a completely-independent observer.

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:20 am
by WetEV
RegGuheert wrote:blastingnews


Paid by the click fake news site.

Fake news has become a catchall term for news sources that lack journalistic integrity. These alt news sites use sensational headlines, make false claims, exaggerate the editorial spin to reflect a bias, are misleading, are conspiratorial, are anti-science, promote propaganda, are written in satire or just plain hoaxes. Many of the sites are untrustworthy because they begin with a premise that is close to a truth and build a false story around it. Please check your sources and your emotions as you read the articles on these sites.
Sites Known for Promoting "Alternative Facts" and Conspiracy Theories


http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-new ... sting-news

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:25 am
by RegGuheert
WetEV wrote:I confess, I believe in physics. I believe in math. I believe in observations. I'm old fashioned, I tell it like I see it. So some sea ice:
No, you don't. You don't even acknowledge that sea ice extent was greatly reduced by wind last September, even though I have given you clear references to those facts. It's quite basic physics, but you don't believe that wind can blow sea ice:
WetEV wrote:Not convinced, winds blow every year. Again, why was this year less than all other recorded years?

You believe is that CO2 can magically make a significant impact on the temperature of the oceans, even though the basic physics of heat flow through a liquid requires the temperature of the surface of the ocean to be changed to reduce the flow of heat to the surface. Sorry, but a 0.0005K change in temperature of the top 1 micron of the ocean is so small that the reduction of flow of heat to the surface of the ocean is completely inconsequential. So physics tells us that NO discussion of CO2 and ocean temperatures should EVER take be taking place once these facts were determined. Yet you persist. Because what you believe is every ridiculous scare-story the media manages to concoct.

Arctic sea ice volume is not currently dropping. In fact, it is exactly the same as last year:

Image

Yeah, the ice over the North Pole is currently 10 FEET THICK! But you think the North Pole will be blue within two years. Nonsense!

There is no "death spiral". In fact, there is no "death" at all. And the idea that the ice will spiral to zero volume is just that: a failed belief. That's why all the predictions of the Arctic sea ice have been so incredibly wrong.

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:40 am
by WetEV
RegGuheert wrote:
WetEV wrote:I confess, I believe in physics. I believe in math. I believe in observations. I'm old fashioned, I tell it like I see it. So some sea ice:
No, you don't. You don't even acknowledge that sea ice extent was greatly reduced by wind last September, even though I have given you clear references to those facts. It's quite basic physics, but you don't believe that wind can blow sea ice:
WetEV wrote:Not convinced, winds blow every year. Again, why was this year less than all other recorded years?


Show me where the wind blew the ice. I don't see where it went.

Image

Re: Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:43 am
by RegGuheert
There's nothing fake about the news that the Great Barrier Reef is healthy and just experiencing a normal response to a large El Nino: Great Barrier Reef Not Dying, Whatever Washington Post Says:
How do they know?

Have they been out there personally – as I have – to check?

No, of course not.

The reason all these people believe the Great Barrier Reef is dying is because they all get their fake news from the same green-left-liberal echo chamber.
Since CO2 has only a completely inconsequential effect on the temperature of the oceans, it CANNOT cause any effect in the ocean related to the temperature.