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

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
RegGuheert said:
downeykp said:
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-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/
 
RegGuheert said:
downeykp said:
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-rocket-scientist-david-evans

Points to much older work in 2008.
 
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.
 
RegGuheert said:
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?seq=1#page_scan_tab_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.
 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...g-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!
 
WetEV said:
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/science/great-barrier-reef-coral-climate-change-dieoff.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.
 
RegGuheert said:
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-news-source/blasting-news
 
WetEV said:
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 said:
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:

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20170320.png


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.
 
RegGuheert said:
WetEV said:
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 said:
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.

FnzRzZG.png
 
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.
 
WetEV said:
Show me where the wind blew the ice. I don't see where it went.
You pretend that the Antarctic Sea Ice has melted between last decade and this decade. In fact, that is farthest from the truth. In fact, in September, 2014, Antarctic Sea Ice set the ALL TIME RECORD in the satellite record at over 20 MILLION SQUARE KILOMETERS:
The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year's five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
Again, here is what happened last September, according to the National Sea Ice Data Center:
NSIDC said:
The early maximum appears to be the result of an intense wind pattern in September, spanning nearly half of the continent from the Wilkes Land area to the Weddell Sea, and centered on the Amundsen Sea. Stronger than average low pressure in this area, coupled with high pressure near the Falkland Islands, and near the southern tip of New Zealand in the Pacific Ocean, created two regions of persistent northwesterly winds. Sea ice extent decreased in the areas where the northwesterly winds reached the ice front.
What happens with sea ice is that it gets blown by the wind. When the wind blows strongly against the ice front, it compresses the ice into a smaller extent.

They continued their narrative in their December, 2016, report:
NSIDC said:
When the westerly wind pattern broke down in November, winds in several areas of Antarctica started to blow from the north. Over a broad area near Wilkes Land, the ice edge was pushed toward the continent.
Bolding mine.
 
RegGuheert said:
WetEV said:
Show me where the wind blew the ice. I don't see where it went.
You pretend that the Antarctic Sea Ice has melted between last decade and this decade.

I make no such pretense. Stop avoiding my question. Record low Antarctic sea ice. Where did all the Antarctic sea ice go?


RegGuheert said:
In fact, that is farthest from the truth.

That isn't what I said. Stop avoiding my question. Where did all the Antarctic sea ice go?


RegGuheert said:
September, 2014, Antarctic Sea Ice set the ALL TIME RECORD in the satellite record at over 20 MILLION SQUARE KILOMETERS

Yes. Record high, then a record low. A rising trend? A falling trend? I'd say no to both. Something different. Maybe you should try to understand rather than try to spin. Stop avoiding my question. Where did all the Antarctic sea ice go?


RegGuheert said:
What happens with sea ice is that it gets blown by the wind. When the wind blows strongly against the ice front, it compresses the ice into a smaller extent.

I don't disagree that happens. I do not see that as an explanation for a record low Antarctic Sea. Here is a visual aid for anyone with an interest:

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/monitor

Select Antarctic, and for product select "Seaice Drift Vector"
Set the time to say January 1, 2017, and click the play button.

Watch the ice move, and tell me where the ice went.
 
RegGuheert said:
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:

breitbart is another fake news site.

Want to convince? Wrong source.

[edit: fixed quoting]
 
BTW: thanks for pointing out this link:

RegGuheert said:

While this is a model result focused on sea ice near Greenland, they run it over the whole Arctic Ocean. While all models are wrong, good models are informative. So comparing this with other results may be interesting, especially near Greenland.


NSIDC said:
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual maximum extent on March 7. This is the lowest maximum in the 38-year satellite record.
NSIDC said:
It was a very warm autumn and winter. Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) over the five months spanning October 2016 through February 2017 were more than 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the entire Arctic Ocean, and greater than 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over large parts of the northern Chukchi and Barents Seas. These overall warm conditions were punctuated by a series of extreme heat waves over the Arctic Ocean.

Data from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 satellite indicate that this winter’s ice cover is slightly thinner compared to the past four years. An ice-ocean model at the University of Washington that incorporates observed weather conditions suggests the volume of ice in the Arctic is unusually low for this time of year.

Record low area and extent, and thinner. Summer might be a little interesting in the Arctic.
 
I can't believe people are still debating this.

I play cards with a climate scientist; he recently co-authored an editorial in the local paper: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5066614-155/op-ed-human-caused-climate-change-is-real - scientific consensus at this time among climate scientists is yes, it's real, and yes, it's anthropogenic.

Regarding sea ice extent, I think the mistake being made is looking at a single year, seeing a "record", and thinking that's meaningful. The long-term trend is what's meaningful. Example: I could look at earlier this year and say we had record low sea ice--same general fallacy. Here's a post from NASA that clarifies the long-term trends: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2569/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles/

The overall trend, globally, from 1980 to now is roughly a loss of ~1.5M square kilometers of sea ice extent, with most of it being lost in the Arctic, and a small/negligible increase in the Antarctic.
 
Didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if someone else already answered the "when" question. It was 1988:

http://bfy.tw/AroL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Modern_period:_1988_to_present
 
Yet conservatives interested in intelligent approaches to climate change are often met with charges of insincerity from a left-wing activist camp that sees our entire side as blinkered, conspiratorial, and unwilling to accept the reality of the debate. Rather than strive to make that caricature a reality, we ought to tackle the climate-change issue by acknowledging the unambiguous evidence that carbon emissions are changing the climate, and unleashing the adaptive ingenuity of human beings to tackle the problem.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/climate-change-sensible-approach-for-conservatives/
 
kidjan said:
I can't believe people are still debating this.
Did you miss the story of the flat-earther who is building his own rocket to prove his belief ? Flat-earthers and AGW denialists will always be with us. You can waste your time with them, but I personally do not bother.
 
Back
Top