AvantHiatus

Too emotionally invested to be objective....that's my thinking...i.e. symptom of their confirmation bias thirst...

Here comes the king. This paper comes from the same crowd that thinks everything is natural variability. They aren't fooling me. 

Apologies. The ECS discussion is agitating like nothing else usually. I just think the timeframe is too small to gather an accurate picture of ECS from observations. If we put all our eggs into the low ECS basket, we're fooked if we are wrong and all our policy making decisions go out the window.

We should prepare for the worst, and expect the impossible. With modern advances like the EmDrive, it should be possible to follow the precautionary principle without breaking the bank.

Natural variability has not mellowed me out. I will not be disarrayed by short term trends.

What are you referring to, exactly?

I have no idea, seems like you are more on the warming train now. 

The question becomes, however: is the paleoclimate data sufficiently reliable/accurate as it pertains to inferring climate sensitivity, especially given the numerous uncertainties regarding cloud feedback, dust loading, and other mechanisms? I think the observation based studies tend to be more representative of how the climate system is behaving/responding in the presence of various forcings. There are obviously limitations with both types of studies, but I think there's more with usage of paleoclimate data as it pertains to inferring climate sensitivity.

Sounds like the old SOC all over again.

At least half of that warming occurred before CO2 levels had increased significantly. We were just rebounding from the Little Ice Age. It is very possible that CO2 only accounts for a small portion of that warming. Additionally, I am not so sure we even have warmed that much. How well did we measure global temperatures in the late 1800s vs Today?? apples to oranges. For the sake of argument if we warmed only .8C it is within the realm of natural variations in the Holocene and I doubt it would cause any major disruption of weather systems. I have been forecasting the weather for 25 years and things don't seem that different. what is different is how the media now reports on weather front and center 24/7. so the perception is that there is more severe storms....

True but several dozen notable events have occured in various parts of the world that have shattered all records from the 20th century. Starting with the 2005 Hurricane Season, extreme AMOC slowdown in 2009/2010, record snowiest snowfall in my local area (which is below 39N) in February 2010, Record heat/drought for the midwest during the string of La Ninas from 2011-2012. Record conus heat in Summer 2012 + super Derecho. Worst California drought 2013-ongoing (and warmest winters). Warmest Winter for Europe 2014/2015. Unprecedented spikes in early season hurricane activity in WPAC. Polar vortex invasions, etc, a generally chaotic blocking pattern worldwide even southern hemisphere. Not to mention all the crap Australia has been thru even record dust storms and heat.

I hope you find this insightful. Opps forgot Hurricane Sandy, lol.

All because of a little extra forcing ~ 2W/m2? The outgoing IR at the TOA of ~ 240 W/m2. We have increased only .8C since the 1800s. Plus the Earth was warmer than present in the past 10,000 years and colder than present. So not much really has changed meteorologically speaking. One thing a warmer world would do would be to reduce the temperature gradient between the poles the tropics lessening the severity of mid-latitude cyclones. However, by increasing surface temperatures you increase low-level water vapor and instability in general. This would have the effect of reducing the size of storms on the horizontal scale. This is called the Rossby Radius of deformation which would get smaller and you would indeed see more intense vertical motions and hence more intense precipitation. This is the study that ORH mentioned.

 

However, if you look closely at that study they began the time period in 1958 and ended in it in 2011 a very wet year. I am not sure what the significance is of 1958, maybe that is when we started recorded hourly precipitation rates?? BUT in the 1960s were very dry in much of the northeast especially and this is where the signal was the strongest with more extreme rain events. So it is very possible we are comparing  rain rates from a known dry time to a period that certainly has been wet. I am not saying the authors are cherry picking. I actually am friends with one of them. I am sure they have a good reason to start in 1958 but that could be skewing the data since the 1960s were dry. I would like to see this over a longer period of time.

 

Speaking of floods, more flash floods would certainly be possible if the above study is indeed true. But river floods may drop since warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation and summer drying. Also snow cover melting is a major source of spring river flooding as well and this will also drop so if we did warm up significantly we may see less river floods but more flash flood type scenarios. Of course this says nothing about coastal flooding....

What if you include cooling from meltwater feedbacks? In the most extreme scenario, sections of Antarctica and Greenland become colder than the 20th century average, creating insane gradients.

^ (in a sense)

Given we are entering a new climate era, everything from now on is pretty much causative of a different background state. Even if it happens to be like it was in the 20th century, it will still arrive differently.

I am disappointed because climate change is perfectly wired to beat us across the board.

The empirical evidence shows no detectable link between floods and AGW. It is in the IPCC SREX report.

Yet you cannot disprove it. It's a poor choice if you want to make an argument for sure. Everyone remember the Colorado floods?

Could be a case of indirect system forcing from AGW leading to heavy rains. Strictly speaking, it's still not caused by AGW if this is true.

So, you're predicting an ice-free Arctic within the next couple years?  Okay, good luck.

Have fun with that. No i'm not predicting, it's just possible, and it would of been nice to see someone have the courage to be ballsy with risky forecasts.

They're not regional..I don't know where you've been getting your education, but the temperatures required to vaporize bonds w/ O^18 and maintain buoyancy (at the aforementioned ratio) are far above those found above 60N for most of the year.

This is rich.

Define denier in the climate change realm. If you don't believe that CO2 increases will destroy the planet are you a denier?

 

or if you don't believe CO2 has any impact on climate are you a denier?  Why do we have to label people anyway?  It all comes down to how much CO2 affects the climate.

 

I believe it will cause about a 1C increase at best. I don't deny CO2 impacts the climate. I believe the water vapor feedback and deep convection in the tropics counters any external forcing plus or minus and leads to a more stable climate system. Only when we are deep in a glacial pattern do I believe the climate is erratic. That is what the paleo records suggest. So am I a denier and of what???

Should be obvious, we live in society deeply rooted in labels and institutions. It makes it easier for us to isolate sources of conflict and resolve them, either diplomatically/integration or by one side destroying the other.

Of course, someone on the inside looking out might not see the situation as it truely exists from an external observer. As with the body, our inner emotions are biased and how society views itself is also faulty.

There is this exceptional misdirected optimism in America and other first-world capitalistic countries. Nobody alive today has lived without the comforts of modern 20th century civilization living and there is a tendency to believe a breakdown is simply not possible. What does this have to do with CC and Denial? It just implies that we are emotionally "conditioned" from the get-go to deny.

You don't really want to be on the wrong end of a conflict with such wide sweeping implications such as climate change. Any person who cares about their prestige would think twice and take the low road and listen to informed experts and policy makers. You are so entrenched but I want you to get out in one piece so here's your chance.

We are all human here. I think we forget that. Debating climate change is nowhere near the same level as debating gay marriage. That hasn't stopped institutions like the SPLC and similar from keeping racism and racial division alive and well. The problem with the left is that their opinion of humans is very diminished and they hate the individual. Infact, they think people are born sexual, born afflicted, born poor, born racist. and have to be indoctrinated, aka reminded of our horrible history in order to prevent it from happening in the future. The perspective has always been backward looking. We've never been forwardly optimistic and we are slow to leave outdated institutions and ways of thinking behind.

Thank goodness that the pope finally accepted climate change. Religion has been hurting us for a long long time and has lead to the worst epochs in human history.

Regardless, 1C of warming is enough to prompt action. We've had high damages from events with AGW influence in their signature. Don't respond with garbage about how it's not knowable, it's also not knowable that AGW did not influence these events.

The 00Z GFS crushes the arctic.

It's coming bro. I don't know what to say, it's a shame Dr. Wadhams moved his prediction to 2017.

Wow, we're talking about climate change genocide now.     

That's a good idea. Climate science doesn't follow the scientific method. It is different from all the other sciences.  /sarc

Pretty much, it's two camps of people screaming at each other with semantics. But in 2015, you will find that the 2 camps don't include deniers. It will be the luke-warmers vs policy makers.

Deniers aren't even relevant anymore, and the US/Canada was the last safe haven for deniers.

All I know is that this place used to be a mess. So congrats ORH and thank you for being professional, and sorry that you missed the 2012 season, Polar Vortex 2014.

 ^

The ocean is everything but a buffer and it is your worst enemy in a AGW world, mabye if you live in Ontario Canada.

Right now the ocean is running warmer than land areas on a 1:1 ratio. Impossible without rapid dynamical shifting in the energy imbalance caused by AGW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

 

 

A dynamical system is a concept in mathematics where a fixed rule describes how a point in a geometrical space depends on time. Examples include the mathematical models that describe the swinging of a clock pendulum, the flow of water in a pipe, and the number of fish each springtime in a lake.

Genocide? ?? You need to get a grip. The climate system is not that sensitive to CO2. The oceans are a huge buffer and the TCR likely will be centuries. Mankind will adapt.

Is it really possible to know all of the above when we have no analogs for a rapid 20th century-esque release of carbon? Paleo argues the climate will roughly stay in bounds within given GHG states. If that is the case, we are headed for a world incompatible with civilization as it exists now.

We are releasing carbon faster than the PETM event, that is pretty messed up but breezes by those who don't have any context of the science. This is why people should listen to scientists like James Hansen and Eric Rignot. There is alot more to the story than Co2 = more heat.

So you are saying that if you don't believe in the alarmist viewpint you are a denier? The term denier is horrible because it has been used on people who deny the holocaust. This is a serious attack on the majority of atmospheric scientists who can be termed luke warmers if you have to label people.

Could very well be on its way towards a genocidal type event at some point, without proper policy making. It's all conjecture, we don't really know what life will be like in 2100 and that is probably a good thing.

Just for future reference, how would you define "denier". I see a lot of labels thrown around in this forum quite a bit, and it seems that the labels given are simply a deviation/disagreement from that poster's point of view (i.e., anything less extreme than one's view is a denier, and anything more extreme than one's view is an alarmist). In other words, like my previous post, there's no objectivity involved in defining these labels, it's just a matter of the person's impression of the validity of their own opinion.

This might be one of the best posts in CC ever. I feel you man. In my opinion, denier is an individual who believes that AGW is not a social, economic, and political threat in the 21st century. They only need to exclude one of the three to be a denier as well.

It's only slightly above and beyond the traditional definition which is simply someone who believes the Earth is not warming due to carbon emissions.

We should probably drop the denier/alarmist thing entirely and go strictly by empirical evidence. The only problem with losing the theoretical touch is that you fall victim to unforeseen consequences and feedbacks. The climate system is like a panel of switches, any respectable climate scientist would agree.

This is total crap, IMO.  A science board has no room for opinions that can't be supported by fact.  Its not about tit for tat.  I am not calling for anyone to be banned, but your admittedly post that you're viewpoint isn't supported by science.  So then why is that your view?

 

I am capable of scrolling past your ridiculous posts and 95% of the time I do.  I've learned that you offer nothing to this discussion and not once has one of your posts helped me understand anything.  But what really gets me is your "get in line with my way of thinking OR ELSE" mindset.  You're terrible at convincing others of your viewpoint with facts - likely because, by your own admission, they don't exist - so instead you try to ridicule and shame people.  There is nothing scientific about that tactic..  

 

Weatherguy701, on 22 May 2015 - 5:48 PM, said:

 

 

If you allow Deniers on the forum, myself & Bacon also have the right to expose our views since both sides are not really supported in the mainstream literature.

This includes all peer-reviewed literature used by IPCC and doesn't include the work in recent years on WAIS melting or work involved in predicting the end of the hiatus.

None of my views are supported by IPCC, but that is not 100% of the story. You misread my post but I forgive you. You made the irrational decision to disregard all my posts based on stereotypes, so don't lecture me on science and reason.

We should try to avoid the personal attacks now. I am getting fed up with it now, and not because it is working against me this time.

It's simply a diplomatic offering, even if it seems shadey and unethical. I will sacrifice myself if deniers are banned from the forum. Science is not perfect, we don't live in a perfect world so you should expect surprises that were not compensated for by Science or even formally recognized.

I've voiced my opinion before about how the peer-review system is inadequate and how we need a new branch of the scientific process for climate change alone due to the field's bizarre intersection of social aspects and public relations.

At the end of the day, it's easier for deniers to scrape by with unsupported theories because the IPCC science is closer to the conservative side and it's not always obvious that their hypothesis is not scientifically tenable.

 

http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

 

An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures

 

Philip J. Lloyd

 

Abstract

There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.

 

I could accept that easily. We didn't start to diverge greatly away from the holocene CO2 range until the 1980's. The red meat of AGW is just still beyond the horizon.

No, the troll tag applies to your post above....you posted unsolicited about another poster's intents which is both irrelevant to the topic and pure conjecture. You seem pretty confused on what constitutes "facts about global warming"....

Therein resides the certain facts and the uncertain facts with probability curves in both directions. Deniers have a useful energy about them but they are debating the wrong spectrum of facts.

If you allow Deniers on the forum, myself & Bacon also have the right to expose our views since both sides are not really supported in the mainstream literature. Granted, this is a different issue from the above post. The sphere of what constitutes denial grows larger every day. At some point attributing significant implications to bi-annual trends in sea ice cover and temperatures will be a form of denial.

The public impetus is just not there and voters aren't asking for this kind of legal and political reform. At the end of the day, expect me to be here for the long haul because deniers should not live peacefully in this forum. I wish I had a law degree in 21st century ethics so I could have my own red badge. Mabye people would listen.

One-way streets don't work in the 21st century, you should have realized this by now. Again, we have problematic issues of generational misunderstanding.

This one is for Jonger.