No. The methane positive feedback loop, according to this paper, may not be catastrophic.
You would be a lot more convincing if you had an alternate, consistent, comprehensive argument to destructive AGW. Is AGW happening, or is it not? Is it destructive, or is it not? Your arguments, 66 pages into this thread, continue to change. You are throwing poop at the wall and seeing what sticks.
AGW has traction because its the only credible, comprehensive theory. Is it perfect? No. Is it devoid of self-interested parties and governmental bodies? No. But its much better than any other theory we have.
Seems he often regurgitates what ever the right-wing sites say like many others here.
I heard recently that U.S. Republicans may rethink their stance on Climate Change to try and garner more younger voters acceptance.
quote
Some 55% of Republicans in the House of Representatives and 65% of those in the Senate reject the science behind climate change or oppose action on climate change, according to an analysis by the Centre for American Progress.
The house speaker, John Boehner, dismissed Obama's plan to reduce carbon emissions as "absolutely crazy". If the poll is right that would hurt Boehner even among members of his own party, with the poll finding 52% of young Republicans less inclined to support a candidate who opposed Obama on climate change.
The implications were even more harsh for those Republicans who block Obama on climate action and dispute the entire body of science behind climate change. "For voters under 35, denying climate change signals a much broader failure of values and leadership," the polling memo said. Many young voters would write such candidates off completely, with 37% describing climate change deniers as "ignorant", 29% as "out of touch" and 7% simply as "crazy".
The climate cranks were unlikely to pick up many points with their base either; just under half of young Republicans said they would be less likely to vote for a climate change denier..
Newf, take responsibility for what you post to make your point. Don't hide. I don't
Arn
My point in posting the article was to follow up on the Climate Change of the Arctic (you know the place you say is in recovery ) I take full responsibility for linking it.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-26-2013).]
It's not nullified, it suggests it will not be catastrophic which hopefully is true. I agree with you though the article I posted DID have a sensational headline however their claim seemed to be "“The imminent disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic will have enormous implications for both the acceleration of climate change, and the release of methane from offshore waters which are now able to warm up in the summer."
Also don't forget about the amounts of methane that the fracking is sure to cause! Those pesky well failures aren't solved AFAIK.
Agreed. I should have said "potentially nullified". At any rate, it doesn't appear to be an imminent danger.
Just when I thought we might have a decent conversation...
Let me know when you decide whether you want a decent conversation, or you just want to trade insults. I can do either, but prefer the latter.
I am always up for a decent conversation and I didn't think I insulted you. If I offended/insulted you by characterizing your posting habits unfairly, I apologize.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You and your posts are worse than useless.
What we have here is a big misunderstanding (newf, maso, you're part of this too). It doesn't sound like anyone read the actual papers or spent some time trying to understand them. We have sensational headlines and the anti-science crowd attacking the headline instead of the underlining science. It doesn't even sound like the people who champion the science understood anything but the headlines. I'm not trying to make enemies with everyone, it's just how it seems to me. I do not think the papers contradict each other but support one another.
The "Vast costs of Arctic change" paper is basically a "what if" scenario paper. It estimates that if 50Gt C were released over a 10 year period from 2015 to 2025 the price tag would be $60 trillion. The paper is NOT a prediction paper, despite "skeptics" accusing it of being one.
The paper WUWT and subsequent followers used to cast doubt on the paper used one line in bold, the following:
quote
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years.
You really have to read the paper to understand what that sentence actually means. The paper's focus is the portion of the methane inventory that is susceptible to climate warming. The paper lists areas of inventory with percentages:
quote
Thick (> 300 m) continuous permafrost onshore (<1%) Subsea permafrost on the circum-Arctic shelves (<0.25%?) < NOTICE QUESTION MARK Deepwater marine hydrates at the feather edge of GHSZ (~3.5%) Deepwater gas hydrates (~95.5%)
Back to the sentence, the phrase "widespread dissociation" is used. For dissociation to be widespread wouldn't it have to effect the majority of the inventory? Could the sentence primary apply to the largest inventory of methane hydrates: deepwater gas hydrates which makes up 95% of known inventory?
Let's move on to the next sentence in that paragraph to find out:
quote
"Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. "
That's EXACTLY what they mean. Most of Earth's gas hydrates are not susceptible to "contemporary" warming. Whatever that means. The inventory paper is not talking about the .25% that makes up the ESAS. The $60 trillion methane paper is talking about the ESAS. Therefore, the quote used by the so called "skeptics" doesn't even apply!
The anti-science crowd used one line out of context in order to invent a debate where none existed. This is a perfect example of the scientific malice carried out by the "skeptics." It's also a perfect example of why WUWT is not a trustworthy source.
Let's continue.
Back to the $60 trillion Methane paper:
quote
"A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly."
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is only .25%? of the methane inventory according to the inventory paper. Therefore, it doesn't have to be "widespread" in order for methane to drastically effect us. It's possible to cost $60 trillion with only .25% of the inventory!
Let's hop back over to the paper Watts cited:
quote
"Shakhova et al. (2010a) calculate that gas hydrates on the ESAS should sequester 20% of the carbon (375 Gt C) of the 1.8x103 Gt C within the conservative global gas hydrate inventory estimate (Boswell & Collett 2011)."
Of the 1800Gt C conservative global gas hydrate inventory estimate, East Siberian Arctic Shelf contains 20%, or 375Gt C. The scenario on the "what if" paper used only 50Gt C of 375Gt C estimated in the ESAS. So it's not like they used outlandish numbers in the "what if" scenario.
From the same paper:
quote
"Shakhova et al. (2010) document CH4 supersaturation in shallow ESAS coastal waters above sediments containing degrading subsea permafrost and presumably dissociating gas hydrates… A substantial fraction of CH4 that is emitted at the seafloor on Arctic shelves may reach the atmosphere since bubble dissolution and aerobic oxidation should be limited in such shallow (~5 to 50 m) waters. "
Sorry if the post is hard to follow. I didn't know how to clearly separate the papers since they're both published by Nature and both about methane.
I find it kinda sad that we cannot have an interesting debate without the "skeptics" accusing the "warmists" of being "alarmist." Are we to the point that we actively threatened by a dramatic methane release in the Arctic? Not YET. But that doesn't mean we cannot get there, we certainly are on our way.
To quote Gavin Schmidt, "It is therefore not silly or alarmist to think about the possibilities, thresholds and impacts for these kinds of events" Source.
The methane argument is nullified. Spending trillions would be a waste.
based on the conclusion of the paper (which I assumed to be quoted correctly)
quote
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years.
Even at face value, its obviously not scientifically valid to take this conclusion alone and jump to the conclusion that "spending trillions would be waste".
However, FlyinFieros, thank you for taking the time to post actual information. I enjoy reading it.
I'll get back to the pedantic ramblings of certain people later, but I found this comment interesting at WUWT:
papertiger on July 26, 2013 at 2:48 am Titan has a 5% methane atmosphere. How much warmer should it be then say… a neighboring moon that has no atmosphere? Fortunately there is a neighboring moon. It’s called Hyperion. And better, Titan and Hyperion have almost matching albedo which means pound for pound they both absorb and convert the same amount of sunlight into infrared (ie:surface temperature). So we can do a direct comparison between their surface temperatures and the difference will be the global warming potential of methane. Right?
According to the wikipedias, Hyperion’s surface temperature is 93 K (−180 °C) TItan’s surface temperature at the Huygens crashsite (equator) 93.7 K (−179.5 °C).
Bevan”s comment @ July 26, 2013 at 12:17 am, I’m guessing is based on the physical chemical properties of methane as produced in a lab here on Earth. I don’t think it’s an accident that against all reports of methane as a GHG by people such as Gavin Schmidt, when it’s observed in the wild places of our solar system, methane acts in the manner described by Brevan.
The article mentioned above, with staunch warmist Gavin Schmidt, and his personal debunks of the aforementioned sensationalist article. Without the pedantic ramblings, ad homenim attacks and added tangents of certain people:
What we have here is a big misunderstanding (newf, maso, you're part of this too). It doesn't sound like anyone read the actual papers or spent some time trying to understand them. We have sensational headlines and the anti-science crowd attacking the headline instead of the underlining science. It doesn't even sound like the people who champion the science understood anything but the headlines. I'm not trying to make enemies with everyone, it's just how it seems to me. I do not think the papers contradict each other but support one another.
Guilty as charged. I quickly read through Bear's linked study and it seemed like there were some points that contradicted the headlines, which I consider very sensational. And while this is a topic that I do find interesting I have neither the time nor the inclination to become an expert on the minutia of the science. I do try to keep abreast of major findings but to say that I read and understand most papers on Climate Change would be a lie, this is why I have always said I trust the scientists and experts.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-29-2013).]
Guilty as charged. I quickly read through Bear's linked study and it seemed like there were some points that contradicted the headlines, which I consider very sensational. And while this is a topic that I do find interesting I have neither the time nor the inclination to become an expert on the minutia of the science. I do try to keep abreast of major findings but to say that I read and understand most papers on Climate Change would be a lie, this is why I have always said I trust the scientists and experts.
If you aren't willing to dig into this on your own, then don't criticize those of us who do.
If you aren't willing to dig into this on your own, then don't criticize those of us who do.
Otherwise, you are ripe for being deceived.
You misunderstood what I posted I believe. I said I don't have time or the inclination to become an expert on the minutia of the science. That doesn't mean I accept everything at face value either but at some point you have to give it up to the experts IMO, at times the science is beyond my understanding other times it's not it depends on the paper etc. I never said I don't dig into things however for me to claim I have an expert level of knowledge on Climate Change would be false, again that's why I believe at some point you have to trust people that are more experienced and knowledgeable on such subjects.
Example: If I was diagnosed with a medical problem I would read up on it and try to understand as much of it as time etc. allows. Does that mean I would be an expert after doing so? Nope, but it would help me make an informed opinion or decision on what my next course of action would be. That is all I have ever claimed to do with Climate Change science.
Speaking of "ripe" you might want to smell much of what it is you read on WUWT.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-29-2013).]
Speaking of "ripe" you might want to smell much of what it is you read on WUWT.
Most of what you read there are articles with links to various published papers, along with some commentary. I seldom link to it with including a link to the paper being discussed, or I link directly to the paper. Your comment is simply more trollish bullshit.
Originally posted by fierobear: I'll get back to the pedantic ramblings of certain people later,
While we're waiting for WUWT to spoon feed fierobear his denier talking points, let's examine the nonsense he has posted thus far.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: but I found this comment interesting at WUWT:
papertiger on July 26, 2013 at 2:48 am Titan has a 5% methane atmosphere. How much warmer should it be then say… a neighboring moon that has no atmosphere? Fortunately there is a neighboring moon. It’s called Hyperion. And better, Titan and Hyperion have almost matching albedo which means pound for pound they both absorb and convert the same amount of sunlight into infrared (ie:surface temperature). So we can do a direct comparison between their surface temperatures and the difference will be the global warming potential of methane. Right?
According to the wikipedias, Hyperion’s surface temperature is 93 K (−180 °C) TItan’s surface temperature at the Huygens crashsite (equator) 93.7 K (−179.5 °C).
Bevan”s comment @ July 26, 2013 at 12:17 am, I’m guessing is based on the physical chemical properties of methane as produced in a lab here on Earth. I don’t think it’s an accident that against all reports of methane as a GHG by people such as Gavin Schmidt, when it’s observed in the wild places of our solar system, methane acts in the manner described by Brevan.
These commentaries at WUWT are actually second guessing the greenhouse gas properties of methane, a well known and documented scientific fact. This is what skeptics waste their time doing! They attempt to invent a debate where none existed.
First off, Titan has methane in it's atmosphere but it also has liquid methane on its surface. The surface temperature on Titan -179.5°C is lower than the boiling point of methane which is -162°C. Like water is on Earth, methane is on Titan.
Attempting to relate the affect methane has on Earth to the affect methane has on Titan is senseless. Titan is 1,427,000,000km from the sun. Earth is 149,600,000km from the sun. Titan is 9 times further from the sun than Earth. That means it receives 81 times LESS heat than Earth. The atmospheres are not even close to comparable. Especially when you consider which one can harbor the life on Earth.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The article mentioned above, with staunch warmist Gavin Schmidt, and his personal debunks of the aforementioned sensationalist article. Without the pedantic ramblings, ad homenim attacks and added tangents of certain people:
If you want to be taken seriously as a skeptic you should tell the full story not just a small fraction of it that supports your ideas. Who cares what anyone said about anything. WHY did they say it. What was the reasoning? That's the most important aspect of the debate. Just spreading around a quote is meaningless. I would have thought you learned this after I debunked your plagiarized WUWT post. Source of plagiarized piece.
The reason Gavin Schmidt says the scenario of the 'what if' paper is implausible is due to current temperatures and historic evidence of the Arctic. In the early Holocene the Arctic had less summer sea ice than 2012 which is the lowest year on record. We have evidence that during the Eemian period 125,000 years ago temperatures were 1-2*C warmer than today North of the Alps. South of the Alps conditions were 1-2*C cooler than today. Orbital variations explain the historic temperature change sufficiently. Source.
The reason the temperatures during this period are relevant is we didn't see the Arctic drop a methane bomb. The IPCC's warming best estimate and 'likely' ranges from 1.1*C to 2.9*C before the year 2100. Source.
While the $60 trillion methane scenario isn't exactly plausible in the near future it certainly isn't impossible. This is why we need to take action on climate change, so we still have an Earth in 200 years.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: If you aren't willing to dig into this on your own, then don't criticize those of us who do. Otherwise, you are ripe for being deceived.
You should take your own advise. It's evident you do not look into the things you post at all.
Most of what you read there are articles with links to various published papers, along with some commentary. I seldom link to it with including a link to the paper being discussed, or I link directly to the paper. Your comment is simply more trollish bullshit.
Yes, I have noticed you have started bypassing WUWT and linked the papers directly since being criticized for just re-posting whatever WUWT latest entry was. I think the point is you still seem to use WUWT for your talking points on the papers, which is fine, but it appears you are trying to disguise your opinion with an imagined expertise in Climate Science by repeating what that site and other rightwing blogs have to say.
As for my comment, lighten up it was merely a joke.
We've had enough distractions from the warmists and trolls. Back to the science (and politics)...
Looks like warmist Senator Boxer's little Senate Panel show fell on it's warmist face (several links at original story)
Ouch! ‘Senate global warming hearing backfires on Democrats’ — Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama! — ‘Skeptics & Roger Pielke Jr. totally dismantled warmism (scientifically, economically, rhetorically) — Climate Depot Round Up http://www.climatedepot.com...ically-rhetorically/
Sen. Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama on Climate Change’ -- Warmists Asked: 'Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?' For several seconds, nobody said a word. Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping'
Climate Depot Round Up of July 18, 2013 Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Global Warmnig Hearing: Analysis: ‘Senate global warming hearing backfires on Democrats’ — ‘Skeptics & Roger Pielke Jr. totally dismantled warmism (scientifically, economically, rhetorically) at today’s Senate hearing’ (via JunkScience.com)
‘Sen. Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama on Climate Change’ – During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?” For several seconds, nobody said a word. Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping, but I couldn’t tell for sure. We’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and count the crickets in the “maybe” camp. After several seconds of deafening silence, global warming activist Heidi Cullen, who formerly served as a meteorologist for the Weather Channel, attempted to change the subject. Cullen said our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama. When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama’s central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated. Several minutes later, Sen. Jeff Sessions returned to the topic and sought additional clarity. Sessions recited Obama’s quote claiming accelerating global warming during the past 10 years and asked, “Do any of you support that quote?” Again, a prolonged and deafening silence ensued. Neither Cullen nor any of the other experts on the panel spoke a word, not even in an attempt to change the subject.
More JunkScience.com tweets from today’s Senate hearing: “25 years after Jim Hansen birthed warmism in Senate hearing, skeptics all but stomped warmism to death in Senate hearing”
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘Majority witnesses helping Democrats on EPW to dig the extreme weather hole deeper and deeper. Does that really help?’ Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on Warmist Heidi Cullen’s testimony: ‘She does include some dubious and misleading statements’ – Curry on warmist Jennifer Francis: ‘She makes several statements about the science that seem to me to be misleading’
Warmist Heidi Cullen’s claim at Senate climate hearing of ‘73% increase in heavy downpours’ is not supported by data – What the data says: ‘Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950.’
Flashback 2007: Warmist Heidi Cullen Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics: ‘If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval’
GOP Challenges Global Warming Science: Senate GOP issues report criticizing past global warming claims ahead of climate hearing Read Full GOP Climate Report here.
A well-rehearsed Senate panel stages another science debate: ‘Vitter and other Republicans argued that climate change is chiefly the result of natural causes’ Full Senate Testimony of Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer formerly of NASA: ‘Weather and climate vary naturally, and by amounts that are not 2 currently being exceeded; (2) global warming theory is just that – based upon theory; & (3) there is no unique fingerprint of human caused global warming’ – Spencer is Principal Research Scientist IV University of Alabama, Huntsville: ‘The belief that global warming and associated climate change involve more severe weather cannot be supported observationally…There is little or no observational evidence that severe weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50, or 100 years, irrespective of whether any such changes could be blamed on human activities, anyway. Long-term measurements of droughts, floods, strong tornadoes, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms etc. all show no obvious trends, but do show large variability from one decade to the next, or even one year to the next.’
PROF. ROGER PIELKE JR: TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT STATE OF WEATHER EXTREMES: ‘It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally’ – Link to full testimony of Roger Pielke Jr. to Congress: ‘It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases’ Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%) and insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.
• Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970 (when data allows for a global perspective).
• Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.
• Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.
• Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”
• The absolute costs of disasters will increase significantly in coming years due to greater wealth and populations in locations exposed to extremes. Consequent, disasters will continue to be an important focus of policy, irrespective of the exact future course of climate change.’
Scientist tells senators: Global warming not causing extreme weather – Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. : ‘It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the U.S. or globally’
Warmist Dem Sen. Bernie Sanders ‘waited until his second sentence to mention Exxon & Koch brothers. 4th sentence to use ‘deny’. 5th ’97% consensus’
Read Full 21-Page GOP Senate Climate Report: ‘Critical Thinking on Climate Change’: – ‘Questions to Consider Before Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing Economic Policies’ Wildfires have not increased: ‘Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%. Estimates published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences show that even with global warming proceeding uninterrupted, the level of wildfires will continue to decline until around midcentury and won’t resume on the level of 1950—the worst for fire—before the end of the century.’
Sen. Boxer at hearing: ‘In a few short years, we can just look out window and see evidence of climate change all around us’ Flashback: Dem Sen. Boxer blames tornadoes on global warming — Plugs her carbon tax bill to fix bad weather: ‘This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather…We need to protect our people’ – ‘Carbon could cost us the planet’
Read the full testimony of all the witness at Senate Climate Hearing
Harry Reid blames forest fires on ‘climate change’ Reality Check: ‘Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%… The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that ‘there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.’ NO… Global warming not to blame for West Nile outbreaks New York Times Features Climate Depot’s Morano in profile on Bill Nye: ‘In an exchange several months ago on ‘Piers Morgan Tonight’ on CNN, Mr. Morano denied that warming is occurring, and scoffed that Mr. Nye’s arguments were “the level of your daily horoscope. Flashback May 2013: Submitted Written Testimony of Climate Depot’s Marc Morano at Congressional Hearing on Climate Change: ‘The Origins and Response to Climate Change’ — Morano to the U.S. Congress: ‘The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A-Z — the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing, and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts.’
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-31-2013).]
Expert witnesses called by Sen. Barbara Boxer to testify during Senate Environment and Public Works hearings yesterday contradicted a key assertion made by President Barack Obama on climate change.
Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser less than a month before directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose costly new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, Obama said, “we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.”
“I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change,” Obama added.
However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years. Storch told Der Spiegel that 98 percent of IPCC climate models cannot replicate the prolonged pause in global warming, and IPCC may need to revise its computer models to correct their apparent warming bias.
During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?”
For several seconds, nobody said a word. Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping, but I couldn’t tell for sure. We’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and count the crickets in the “maybe” camp.
After several seconds of deafening silence, global warming activist Heidi Cullen, who formerly served as a meteorologist for the Weather Channel, attempted to change the subject. Cullen said our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama. When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama’s central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated.
Several minutes later, Sen. Jeff Sessions returned to the topic and sought additional clarity. Sessions recited Obama’s quote claiming accelerating global warming during the past 10 years and asked, “Do any of you support that quote?”
Again, a prolonged and deafening silence ensued. Neither Cullen nor any of the other experts on the panel spoke a word, not even in an attempt to change the subject.
Boxer may have envisioned her high-profile global warming hearings as an opportunity to build momentum for congressional or EPA action to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, the very global warming activists she called to serve as expert witnesses delivered a crushing blow to President Obama’s central justification for expensive new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.
Full Senate Testimony of Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer formerly of NASA: ‘Weather and climate vary naturally, and by amounts that are not 2 currently being exceeded; (2) global warming theory is just that – based upon theory; & (3) there is no unique fingerprint of human caused global warming’
Spencer is Principal Research Scientist IV University of Alabama, Huntsville: 'The belief that global warming and associated climate change involve more severe weather cannot be supported observationally...There is little or no observational evidence that severe weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50, or 100 years, irrespective of whether any such changes could be blamed on human activities, anyway. Long-term measurements of droughts, floods, strong tornadoes, hurricanes, severe thunderstorms etc. all show no obvious trends, but do show large variability from one decade to the next, or even one year to the next.'
Well fierobear it looks like you just can't debate the science.
You've fallen back on your old strategy of ignoring the fact you're wrong and simply attempting to bury the evidence in a mountain of worthless political posts. Which is against the noble precedent you set in your first post for this entire thread:
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: This is about valid proof, not hype, not bullshit.
Originally posted by fierobear: During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?”
Climate change skeptics remained fixated on this 10-year period but it's clear that 10 years is too short a sample to get a meaningful result.
Your own graph from 2008, intended to promote your argument, actually shows the PDO cycle could easily influence a 10 year period:
Now if cooling or flat-lining continues for another 15 years, I would agree. But too many factors can influence temperature in a 10 year window.
There are some legitimate questions that should be raised about this data set and/or its presentation ... which may or may not affect its veracity. We'll see if the skeptics can discern any of them.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-31-2013).]
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Climate change skeptics remained fixated on this 10-year period but it's clear that 10 years is too short a sample to get a meaningful result.
Climate change skeptics remained fixated on this 10-year period but it's clear that 10 years is too short a sample to get a meaningful result.
Your own graph from 2008, intended to promote your argument, actually shows the PDO cycle could easily influence a 10 year period
Now if cooling or flat-lining continues for another 15 years, I would agree. But too many factors can influence temperature in a 10 year window.
That quote is a politician saying "10 years". I don't know why he chose that number, perhaps he was speaking off the cuff, because the data shows 16 years of flat temperatures despite constantly rising CO2.
As for "my own graph" showing the PDO cycle, that was the point I was making! The PDO cycle is a better fit than CO2 as a driver of climate.
When they make these claims they have to be highly selective in the evidence they're considering. These claims only account for surface air temperatures. These claims ignore 90% of the total warming.
Ah yes, once again with the deep ocean explanation for the missing heat that the warmists can't account for. It is getting humorous how they change the explanations and theories to chase the heat they say is supposed to be there but they can't account for. Couldn't find it on land, so they moved it into the deep ocean, where they still can't find it. Yeah, keep hunting for that missing heat, warmists. LOL
Originally posted by fierobear: As for "my own graph" showing the PDO cycle, that was the point I was making! The PDO cycle is a better fit than CO2 as a driver of climate.
Except there's zero evidence to substantiate that PDO is a better fit than CO2. The energy of Earth's system is increasing why PDO remains flat or even trends in the opposite direction: Source.
Climate models clearly show the impact of anthropogenic based warming: Source. "Human Influence"
Solar output is down and PDO is down. Why are we still warming? Anthropogenic forcing.
I've mentioned before that climate sensitivity is very important to the theory that mankind's CO2 emissions are a potential problem. If the climate is somewhat or very sensitive, then the "tipping points" could be reached where the climate runs away on the warm side. On the other hand, if climate is *not* sensitive to the additional CO2, then none of this is a problem. The reason being that CO2 alone is not a strong enough greenhouse gas to cause any sort of catastrophic warming on it's own. Well, more evidence is mounting that the climate system is not anywhere near as sensitive as the warmists have assumed and claimed. Now, the next IPCC assessment report is soon due to be released, it's a MESS, and it's assumptions about climate sensitivity are looking to be WAY off.
By PAUL C. "CHIP" KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS SHARE
Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in the midst of finishing its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the topic. Based on a series of content leaks, it seems as if the AR5 has so much internal inconsistency that releasing it in its current form will be a major fiasco.
The central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. New and mutually consistent re-assessments of this important parameter are appearing in the scientific literature faster than the slow and arduous IPCC assessment process can digest them (presuming it even wants to—given that they are making the current AR5 look pretty bad).
Further, even if the IPCC is able to do an adequate job of assimilating this evolving and quite convincing science, the vast majority of the rest of the IPCC’s report will also have to be changed as it is highly dependent on the magnitude of the climate sensitivity.
By now, though, it’s too late in the game (the final report is due out in early 2014)—the cows have all left the IPCC’s barn on these subjects and it’s too late to round them all up and rebrand them.
The First Order Draft (FOD) of the IPCC’s AR5 was leaked/made public back in December 2012. In the FOD, the IPCC recognized the significance of the earth climate sensitivity, calling it:
[T]he single most important measure of climate response because the response of many other climate variables to an increase in CO2 scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature.
The IPCC went on to assess the current scientific knowledge as to the magnitude of the climate sensitivity this way:
Despite considerable advances in climate models and in understanding and quantifying climate feedbacks, the assessed literature still supports the conclusion from AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007] that climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value remains near 3°C. An ECS greater than about 6–7°C is very unlikely, based on combination of multiple lines of evidence. [emphasis in original]
The IPCC’s “mostly likely value” in the FOD is 3.0°C. This is interesting in and of itself because according to the same First Order Draft the average climate sensitivity produced by the climate models used by the IPCC is 3.4°C, which is already some 13% higher than the IPCC’s 3.0 degrees.
If the IPCC thinks there was something systematically wrong with the models it was using, then it should just come out and say it. The fact that the IPCC (currently) will not do so does not exactly inspire confidence in its ability to stand up and criticize. In reality, the average climate sensitivity of a collection of results published within the past 2-3 years suggests that the value is closer to 2.0°C, and recent observations of the pace of global temperature rise hint at a value even a bit lower than that.
The IPCC has come under growing pressure from the scientific community—especially members of the commission directly involved in climate sensitivity research—to reflect these new, lower estimates.
There are some indications, though, that the IPCC times may be a–changing.
According to The Economist, which claims to have seen the most recent draft of the IPCC’s AR5, the IPCC’s assessment of climate sensitivity has now been altered. Here is how The Economist describes what is in the new IPCC draft concerning the equilibrium climate sensitivity:
Both the 2007 IPCC report and a previous draft of the new assessment reflected earlier views on the matter by saying that the standard measure of climate sensitivity (the likely rise in equilibrium temperature in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration) was between 2°C and 4.5°C, with 3°C the most probable figure. In the new draft, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped. That seems to reflect a growing sense that climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises.
If this is true, the combination of the IPCC lowering the low end of the range of possible climate sensitivity values and the IPCC deciding not to provide its assessment of the “most likely” value strongly suggests that the average climate model sensitivity of 3.4°C is even further removed from the science on the topic and less justifiable. Just how far removed the climate models really are is kept under wraps by the IPCC by its no longer supplying a “most likely” value. If the “most likely” value were to be assessed at 2.5°C, then the climate model average would be 36% too high compared to the science. If the “most likely” value were to be 2.0°C, then the model average climate sensitivity would be some 70% too high.
Because, as the IPCC admits, the change in many other climate variables “scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature,” the climate impacts derived from the model projections (which essentially is what the IPCC is all about) are also (substantially) too high.
The IPCC has three options:
Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
We’re betting on door number 3
On a final note, the problem of large government climate change assessments being scientifically outdated even before they are released is not atypical of “group science,” which is hugely expensive, grossly inefficient, and often is designed to justify policy. We noted the same thing in our comments on the recent draft report of the U.S. effort at assessing climate change impacts, the “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), stating:
To the extent that the recent literature ultimately produces a more accurate estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity than does the climate model average, it means that, in general, all of the projections of future climate change given in the NCA are, by default, some 40% too large (too rapid) and the associated (and described) impacts are gross overestimates.
Our recommendation is that an alternative set of projections be developed for all topics discussed in the NCA, incorporating the latest scientific findings on the lowered value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Without the addition of the new projections, the NCA will be obsolete on the day of its official release.
And to think, these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.
I've mentioned before that climate sensitivity is very important to the theory that mankind's CO2 emissions are a potential problem. If the climate is somewhat or very sensitive, then the "tipping points" could be reached where the climate runs away on the warm side. On the other hand, if climate is *not* sensitive to the additional CO2, then none of this is a problem. The reason being that CO2 alone is not a strong enough greenhouse gas to cause any sort of catastrophic warming on it's own. Well, more evidence is mounting that the climate system is not anywhere near as sensitive as the warmists have assumed and claimed. Now, the next IPCC assessment report is soon due to be released, it's a MESS, and it's assumptions about climate sensitivity are looking to be WAY off.
By PAUL C. "CHIP" KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS SHARE
Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in the midst of finishing its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the topic. Based on a series of content leaks, it seems as if the AR5 has so much internal inconsistency that releasing it in its current form will be a major fiasco.
The central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. New and mutually consistent re-assessments of this important parameter are appearing in the scientific literature faster than the slow and arduous IPCC assessment process can digest them (presuming it even wants to—given that they are making the current AR5 look pretty bad).
Further, even if the IPCC is able to do an adequate job of assimilating this evolving and quite convincing science, the vast majority of the rest of the IPCC’s report will also have to be changed as it is highly dependent on the magnitude of the climate sensitivity.
By now, though, it’s too late in the game (the final report is due out in early 2014)—the cows have all left the IPCC’s barn on these subjects and it’s too late to round them all up and rebrand them.
The First Order Draft (FOD) of the IPCC’s AR5 was leaked/made public back in December 2012. In the FOD, the IPCC recognized the significance of the earth climate sensitivity, calling it:
[T]he single most important measure of climate response because the response of many other climate variables to an increase in CO2 scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature.
The IPCC went on to assess the current scientific knowledge as to the magnitude of the climate sensitivity this way:
Despite considerable advances in climate models and in understanding and quantifying climate feedbacks, the assessed literature still supports the conclusion from AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007] that climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value remains near 3°C. An ECS greater than about 6–7°C is very unlikely, based on combination of multiple lines of evidence. [emphasis in original]
The IPCC’s “mostly likely value” in the FOD is 3.0°C. This is interesting in and of itself because according to the same First Order Draft the average climate sensitivity produced by the climate models used by the IPCC is 3.4°C, which is already some 13% higher than the IPCC’s 3.0 degrees.
If the IPCC thinks there was something systematically wrong with the models it was using, then it should just come out and say it. The fact that the IPCC (currently) will not do so does not exactly inspire confidence in its ability to stand up and criticize. In reality, the average climate sensitivity of a collection of results published within the past 2-3 years suggests that the value is closer to 2.0°C, and recent observations of the pace of global temperature rise hint at a value even a bit lower than that.
The IPCC has come under growing pressure from the scientific community—especially members of the commission directly involved in climate sensitivity research—to reflect these new, lower estimates.
There are some indications, though, that the IPCC times may be a–changing.
According to The Economist, which claims to have seen the most recent draft of the IPCC’s AR5, the IPCC’s assessment of climate sensitivity has now been altered. Here is how The Economist describes what is in the new IPCC draft concerning the equilibrium climate sensitivity:
Both the 2007 IPCC report and a previous draft of the new assessment reflected earlier views on the matter by saying that the standard measure of climate sensitivity (the likely rise in equilibrium temperature in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration) was between 2°C and 4.5°C, with 3°C the most probable figure. In the new draft, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped. That seems to reflect a growing sense that climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises.
If this is true, the combination of the IPCC lowering the low end of the range of possible climate sensitivity values and the IPCC deciding not to provide its assessment of the “most likely” value strongly suggests that the average climate model sensitivity of 3.4°C is even further removed from the science on the topic and less justifiable. Just how far removed the climate models really are is kept under wraps by the IPCC by its no longer supplying a “most likely” value. If the “most likely” value were to be assessed at 2.5°C, then the climate model average would be 36% too high compared to the science. If the “most likely” value were to be 2.0°C, then the model average climate sensitivity would be some 70% too high.
Because, as the IPCC admits, the change in many other climate variables “scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature,” the climate impacts derived from the model projections (which essentially is what the IPCC is all about) are also (substantially) too high.
The IPCC has three options:
Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
We’re betting on door number 3
On a final note, the problem of large government climate change assessments being scientifically outdated even before they are released is not atypical of “group science,” which is hugely expensive, grossly inefficient, and often is designed to justify policy. We noted the same thing in our comments on the recent draft report of the U.S. effort at assessing climate change impacts, the “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), stating:
To the extent that the recent literature ultimately produces a more accurate estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity than does the climate model average, it means that, in general, all of the projections of future climate change given in the NCA are, by default, some 40% too large (too rapid) and the associated (and described) impacts are gross overestimates.
Our recommendation is that an alternative set of projections be developed for all topics discussed in the NCA, incorporating the latest scientific findings on the lowered value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Without the addition of the new projections, the NCA will be obsolete on the day of its official release.
And to think, these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.
Scary thought.
Way off? Let's wait for the report rather than assuming from "leaked snippets".
Also you do realize this article doesn't dispute the cause of Climate Change correct?
Personally I'm glad to see a willingness to take into account whatever new data they can get in there.
Where you will see that the most major hurricanes (in modern times) over a 3 year period occured in 2003-2005 but tied 1949-51 and 1950-52
Since 2005 we have not achieved any records
When I say that no islands have been inundated like Al Gore threatened,
The University of Aukland and studied the island nations of Micronesia, and find they are not in danger at all. (sorry, you have to look it up)
Oh wait! you don't have to. Just look on Google Earth. They are still there
When I say the Arctic Ice fields are not at threat, Arctic Sea Ice News Satellite images show the ice this summer is within the standard variability
While the first 2 weeks of July was faster decline than normal, it is still within the standard variation.
No matter what level of ranting and raving, name calling and insults, the facts simply are that the forecasted disasters predicted in the early 90s have just not happened.
The Global Average Temperature is not racing out of control.
Yes, the climate has been evolving warmer since the last ice age. Did mankind cause it? nope.
Arn(my real name)
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 08-01-2013).]
says there are 20,000 - 25,000 polar bears globally and they are not an endangered species.
The link also states the following:
Climate change continues to have a negative impact on polar bears in some portions of their range and remains the most important threat to their long-term range-wide security.
quote
When I say that no islands have been inundated like Al Gore threatened,
The University of Aukland and studied the island nations of Micronesia, and find they are not in danger at all. (sorry, you have to look it up)
Oh wait! you don't have to. Just look on Google Earth. They are still there
Because the islands have not yet been inundated, they are not threatened? It's well known that warmer climate causes sea levels to rise, and we've both already agreed that temperatures are rising.
quote
When I say the Arctic Ice fields are not at threat, Arctic Sea Ice News Satellite images show the ice this summer is within the standard variability
While the first 2 weeks of July was faster decline than normal, it is still within the standard variation.
Problems with your conclusion:
1. That's 2 standard deviations, not 1, or 95% confidence interval. The fact we are almost beyond 2 standard deviations from the 1981-2010 average should raise some questions. If the graph was normalized to the 1900-2000 average which had cooler average temperatures then 2013 would be beyond 2 standard devations away from the mean. 2. That's sea ice, which has already been linked to warming, since it forms when glaciers break apart due to warmer climate, 3. Its SQUARE AREA, not volume, which makes the data misleading at best, useless at worst
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 08-02-2013).]
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: There are some legitimate questions that should be raised about this data set and/or its presentation ... which may or may not affect its veracity. We'll see if the skeptics can discern any of them.
Originally posted by fierobear: Ah yes, once again with the deep ocean explanation for the missing heat that the warmists can't account for.
First, the links you provided don't even apply to the paper I cited. They're referencing a totally different study. More importantly, the links are biased and wrong.
Second, the oceans are clearly warming at an unprecedented rate. You're attempting to generate a debate where one really doesn't exist. This is evident in your inability to apply your knowledge universally to the actual issue being discussed. You were forced to change the context.
If you dispute the scientific consensus on ocean warming- how much are the oceans warming? Any at all?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: It is getting humorous how they change the explanations and theories to chase the heat they say is supposed to be there but they can't account for.
You are in no position to make those kinds of inaccurate and generalizing statements.
You have left dozens of questions on this forum unanswered. You have never addressed dozens of clear and obvious errors in your posts. Your 'position' has NEVER been stated despite clear and numerous requests from fellow members. Consequently, your 'position' is perceived as inconsistent and conflicting.
So put down that stone, you've no need to throw it.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-02-2013).]
) I take full responsibility for linking it.
)
