Canadian debate on climate change

[Snow_Miser]

What do you mean?

 

He's referring to Climategate.

[Sundog]

He's referring to Climategate.

I know. I just want to hear what he thinks actually happened.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

I know. I just want to hear what he thinks actually happened.

 

I believe it's quite obvious to anyone who even remotely follows the whole climate change debate. Not all data can be trusted...

[skierinvermont]

I believe it's quite obvious to anyone who even remotely follows the whole climate change debate. Not all data can be trusted...

 

You do realize that at least several of us here have actually read the entirety of many of the emails, have read the research referred to in them, are familiar with the subjects of the emails, the authors of the emails, and have read various interpretations of the emails. You won't find a single poster who has done the above due diligence - not even tacoman or ORH - that thinks the emails cast serious doubt upon the conclusions of peer-reviewed climate science. In short, your opinion on the matter is worthless and you should defer to those with more familiarity than yourself. 

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

You do realize that at least several of us here have actually read the entirety of many of the emails, have read the research referred to in them, are familiar with the subjects of the emails, the authors of the emails, and have read various interpretations of the emails. You won't find a single poster who has done the above due diligence - not even tacoman or ORH - that thinks the emails cast serious doubt upon the conclusions of peer-reviewed climate science. In short, your opinion on the matter is worthless and you should defer to those with more familiarity than yourself. 

 

Well sir, your opinion is worthless as well. Your just some name on a weather board. What have you done to ensure the validity of the "peer reviewed science"? Furthermore, you have no idea how informed a poster might be on a particular subject matter.

[f2tornado]

This is one of the few times I'll agree with skier. The climategate e-mails really only suggest one thing, that the academic AGW crowd is one big arrogant group think circle jerk.

[skierinvermont]

This is one of the few times I'll agree with skier. The climategate e-mails really only suggest one thing, that the academic AGW crowd is one big arrogant group think circle jerk.

 

I don't think they even demonstrate that. For example, Trenberth bemoans that they don't have adequate observations to detect the flow of energy throughout the climate system. Instead of pretending they know more than they do, there is an honest assessment of what is not known and what can be improved. Some improvement in detecting the energy budget has been accomplished since his email, but some uncertainty remains (which is again acknowledged). 

 

At worst, the emails demonstrate that the scientists have some well deserved animosity towards the frauds that have attacked them and energy industry funded hacks like Willie Soon that have tried to circumvent the peer-review process. 

[Jonger]

This is one of the few times I'll agree with skier. The climategate e-mails really only suggest one thing, that the academic AGW crowd is one big arrogant group think circle jerk.

I have read about a third of the emails, but the one thing I noticed was that a few creditable scientists were objecting to dodgy reconstructions that Mann created, he was apparently cooling the past in order to warm the future, my biggest objection personally.

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-jones-briffa-say-mann-hokey-stick-on-dodgy-ground/

[FloridaJohn]

I have read about a third of the emails, but the one thing I noticed was that a few creditable scientists were objecting to dodgy reconstructions that Mann created, he was apparently cooling the past in order to warm the future, my biggest objection personally.

 

Except that additional research by others has confirmed Mann's original research. Even in that e-mail (from 1999) that you linked to above, Phil Jones says, "this is my opinion and I may change it given more evidence."

[Snow_Miser]

This is one of the few times I'll agree with skier. The climategate e-mails really only suggest one thing, that the academic AGW crowd is one big arrogant group think circle jerk.

I agree 100%. I don't think anyone should be rejoicing when someone passes away, like Phil Jones did during the passing of John Daly.

[Jonger]

This is one of the few times I'll agree with skier. The climategate e-mails really only suggest one thing, that the academic AGW crowd is one big arrogant group think circle jerk.

I agree 100%. I don't think anyone should be rejoicing when someone passes away, like Phil Jones did during the passing of John Daly.

Link?

[Jonger]

I have read about a third of the emails, but the one thing I noticed was that a few creditable scientists were objecting to dodgy reconstructions that Mann created, he was apparently cooling the past in order to warm the future, my biggest objection personally.

 

Except that additional research by others has confirmed Mann's original research. Even in that e-mail (from 1999) that you linked to above, Phil Jones says, "this is my opinion and I may change it given more evidence."

Maybe, maybe not....

No policy change or views of climate change is ever influenced by reconstructed data, real world observations rule the roost.... and well... we know how that's going.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Maybe, maybe not.... No policy change or views of climate change is ever influenced by reconstructed data, real world observations rule the roost.... and well... we know how that's going.

 

 

September for UAH .37C tied with 2012 for 3rd warmest Sept on record IIRC.

GISStemp had the 5th warmest August on their records.  September will almost surely come in 1st or 2nd warmest.

NODC OHC shows records highs for 2011, 2012, and now 2013 is blowing them away.

Spring snow cover loss has dramatically accelerated the last decade.

So has land ice loss globally. Everywhere: 996 of every 1000 glaciers are staying the same or losing ice mass.

Obviously northern hemisphere sea ice volume has dramatically declined while Southern Hemisphere has risen slightly.

August set the monthly record for global ssta.

NCDC is on pace to be the 5th warmest year on record with the warmest months yet to come.

Sea Level rise is still above earlier projections from 2007 and before.

 

 

 

But we are in a prolonged Solar min not seen for a century and a -PDO.

 

Why isn't it cooling off?  Temps should have already been plummeteing.

 

 

 

The arctic is supposed to warm 5-9C more by 2100.  You think the methane won't all come out of the Permafrost?  Bottoms of the lakes, sea beds? 

 

I don't get the debate here.  I just a bunch of snow lovers terrified that their descendents or god forbid themselves see warmer winters before they die. 

You worry about snow while belittling the work the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to save lives.

 

I don't understand how a father like you, someone who is well versed in alternative new age energy and knows the dangers of putting so much Co2 in the atmosphere can trivialize the science of this over and over.

[ORH_wxman]

September for UAH .37C tied with 2012 for 3rd warmest Sept on record IIRC.

GISStemp had the 5th warmest August on their records.  September will almost surely come in 1st or 2nd warmest.

NODC OHC shows records highs for 2011, 2012, and now 2013 is blowing them away.

Spring snow cover loss has dramatically accelerated the last decade.

So has land ice loss globally. Everywhere: 996 of every 1000 glaciers are staying the same or losing ice mass.

Obviously northern hemisphere sea ice volume has dramatically declined while Southern Hemisphere has risen slightly.

August set the monthly record for global ssta.

NCDC is on pace to be the 5th warmest year on record with the warmest months yet to come.

Sea Level rise is still above earlier projections from 2007 and before.

 

 

 

But we are in a prolonged Solar min not seen for a century and a -PDO.

 

Why isn't it cooling off?  Temps should have already been plummeteing.

 

 

 

The arctic is supposed to warm 5-9C more by 2100.  You think the methane won't all come out of the Permafrost?  Bottoms of the lakes, sea beds? 

 

I don't get the debate here.  I just a bunch of snow lovers terrified that their descendents or god forbid themselves see warmer winters before they die. 

You worry about snow while belittling the work the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to save lives.

 

I don't understand how a father like you, someone who is well versed in alternative new age energy and knows the dangers of putting so much Co2 in the atmosphere can trivialize the science of this over and over.

 

Something as "minor" as a solar min and a -PDO should have been overcome by now due to the ever-increasing tons of GHGs we are spewing into the atmosphere if the higher sensitivity GCMs are to be believed.

 

The CMIP5 GCMs that include natural variability still couldn't get it right. Something like 2 or 3 models out of over 100 had warming this muted over the past 12-15 years. That means that the models either grossly underestimate natural variability or that they are simply too sensitive to GHGs...or a little of both.

 

Setting warm records is not enough to justify higher end projections. We will set warm records every X number of years (with X being some single digit number) even if we warm very slowly and low TCR/ECS ends up being true.

[SVT450R]

September for UAH .37C tied with 2012 for 3rd warmest Sept on record IIRC.

GISStemp had the 5th warmest August on their records.  September will almost surely come in 1st or 2nd warmest.

NODC OHC shows records highs for 2011, 2012, and now 2013 is blowing them away.

Spring snow cover loss has dramatically accelerated the last decade.

So has land ice loss globally. Everywhere: 996 of every 1000 glaciers are staying the same or losing ice mass.

Obviously northern hemisphere sea ice volume has dramatically declined while Southern Hemisphere has risen slightly.

August set the monthly record for global ssta.

NCDC is on pace to be the 5th warmest year on record with the warmest months yet to come.

Sea Level rise is still above earlier projections from 2007 and before.

 

 

 

But we are in a prolonged Solar min not seen for a century and a -PDO.

 

Why isn't it cooling off?  Temps should have already been plummeteing.

 

 

 

The arctic is supposed to warm 5-9C more by 2100.  You think the methane won't all come out of the Permafrost?  Bottoms of the lakes, sea beds? 

 

I don't get the debate here.  I just a bunch of snow lovers terrified that their descendents or god forbid themselves see warmer winters before they die. 

You worry about snow while belittling the work the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to save lives.

 

I don't understand how a father like you, someone who is well versed in alternative new age energy and knows the dangers of putting so much Co2 in the atmosphere can trivialize the science of this over and over.

You mean those same scientist that have done work on the AMO.

[Jonger]

September for UAH .37C tied with 2012 for 3rd warmest Sept on record IIRC.

GISStemp had the 5th warmest August on their records.  September will almost surely come in 1st or 2nd warmest.

NODC OHC shows records highs for 2011, 2012, and now 2013 is blowing them away.

Spring snow cover loss has dramatically accelerated the last decade.

So has land ice loss globally. Everywhere: 996 of every 1000 glaciers are staying the same or losing ice mass.

Obviously northern hemisphere sea ice volume has dramatically declined while Southern Hemisphere has risen slightly.

August set the monthly record for global ssta.

NCDC is on pace to be the 5th warmest year on record with the warmest months yet to come.

Sea Level rise is still above earlier projections from 2007 and before.

 

 

 

But we are in a prolonged Solar min not seen for a century and a -PDO.

 

Why isn't it cooling off?  Temps should have already been plummeteing.

 

 

 

The arctic is supposed to warm 5-9C more by 2100.  You think the methane won't all come out of the Permafrost?  Bottoms of the lakes, sea beds? 

 

I don't get the debate here.  I just a bunch of snow lovers terrified that their descendents or god forbid themselves see warmer winters before they die. 

You worry about snow while belittling the work the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to save lives.

 

I don't understand how a father like you, someone who is well versed in alternative new age energy and knows the dangers of putting so much Co2 in the atmosphere can trivialize the science of this over and over.

 

Nothing I say or do has the intention of slowing sustainable energy, we are talking about more than that.

 

I'm a champion of "alternative energy" or as I call it "sustainable energy" for more reasons than a possible warming it may have caused, that's more likely to save lives than 2 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century. 

[Snow_Miser]

Link?

 

He welcomes the death of a skeptic as "cheering news." What a horrible person.

 

http://di2.nu/foia/1075403821.txt

[skierinvermont]

He welcomes the death of a skeptic as "cheering news." What a horrible person.

 

http://di2.nu/foia/1075403821.txt

 

Perhaps you are not aware of the public attempts at defamation John Daly had taken against Phil Jones. I'll be honest, if someone I really hated died I might be inclined to call it good news in private. We all say things in private that maybe we wouldn't be so proud of in public or if we really thought about them. I might have been inclined at various points to call the death of GWB, or the Koch brothers, or Rupert Murdoch "good news." Would I really think it is good that they are dead? Probably not. It would be much better that they simply changed their unjust ways, But it also might not be the worst thing that in the world if these people simply went away. I wouldn't be at all surprised if John Daly had similar things to say about Phil Jones. 

 

In any case, the idea that the individual scientists in climate science are any more "corruptible" or "mean-spirited" or "arrogant" than the individual scientists in any other field, such as meteorology, is a silly, childish, oversimplified, naive and biased view of an entire field of science.

[skierinvermont]

Something as "minor" as a solar min and a -PDO should have been overcome by now due to the ever-increasing tons of GHGs we are spewing into the atmosphere if the higher sensitivity GCMs are to be believed.

 

The CMIP5 GCMs that include natural variability still couldn't get it right. Something like 2 or 3 models out of over 100 had warming this muted over the past 12-15 years. That means that the models either grossly underestimate natural variability or that they are simply too sensitive to GHGs...or a little of both.

 

Setting warm records is not enough to justify higher end projections. We will set warm records every X number of years (with X being some single digit number) even if we warm very slowly and low TCR/ECS ends up being true.

 

Well it's not 2 or 3 models out of 100, it's 2 or 3 simulations out of 100 or so (probably only a couple dozen models). That's a significant distinction.

 

There are a couple other interpretations of this fact that you have left out.

 

1. Aerosols. Aerosol forcing over the last 15 years is highly uncertain. Why is it skeptics and deniers (who supposedly are so in love with recognizing "uncertainty" in climate science) are so quick to sweep all the uncertainty about aerosols under the rug? Why so quick to assume that aerosol forcing has been near zero over the last 15 years, when there's not anywhere close to enough evidence to prove that?

 

2. This could simply be a very extreme 2 or 3 standard deviation event of natural variability. The extremity of the 1998 El Nino, the sudden large reversal in solar output, and the multi-year Nina conditions currently all tend to suggest the factors for cool are strong. 2 or 3 standard deviations? I don't know. But it doesn't surprise me that models are struggling to produce this slowdown. 

[skierinvermont]

I have read about a third of the emails, but the one thing I noticed was that a few creditable scientists were objecting to dodgy reconstructions that Mann created, he was apparently cooling the past in order to warm the future, my biggest objection personally. http://junkscience.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-jones-briffa-say-mann-hokey-stick-on-dodgy-ground/

 

He wasn't "cooling the past in order to warm the future" ... that is a lie. This is a science forum. Please try to restrict your comments to factual ones only.

 

Jones' primary objection is that Mann did not include all possible sources of uncertainty in his reconstruction. In other words, it overstates the confidence level. This is not the same thing as arbitrarily cooling the past in order to warm the future.

 

Other reconstructions have found slightly different results than Mann. But the general findings of a slowly changing climate until recently, a moderate warm period about 900 years ago, and reasonable though varied confidence that we are at the warmest temperatures in 1000+ years, have remained consistent. 

[ORH_wxman]

Well it's not 2 or 3 models out of 100, it's 2 or 3 simulations out of 100 or so (probably only a couple dozen models). That's a significant distinction.

 

There are a couple other interpretations of this fact that you have left out.

 

1. Aerosols. Aerosol forcing over the last 15 years is highly uncertain. Why is it skeptics and deniers (who supposedly are so in love with recognizing "uncertainty" in climate science) are so quick to sweep all the uncertainty about aerosols under the rug? Why so quick to assume that aerosol forcing has been near zero over the last 15 years, when there's not anywhere close to enough evidence to prove that?

 

2. This could simply be a very extreme 2 or 3 standard deviation event of natural variability. The extremity of the 1998 El Nino, the sudden large reversal in solar output, and the multi-year Nina conditions currently all tend to suggest the factors for cool are strong. 2 or 3 standard deviations? I don't know. But it doesn't surprise me that models are struggling to produce this slowdown. 

 

 

Of course there is uncertainty in aerosols. However, if the climate system was super-sensitive to aerosols, then we'd see a higher response to volcanic eruptions. In reality, the CMIP5 models have actually predicted more response to volcanic eruptions than actually occurred.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017607/abstract;jsessionid=5501DDD9347F101A4CE62A2A06C9ED76.f01t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

 

http://www.clim-past.net/8/1551/2012/cp-8-1551-2012.html

 

 

Perhaps there is something special in volcanic eruptions that is not present in manmade aerosol emmissions. That is one possibility.

 

 

In addition, the natural variability component should be at its lowest influence at any point in the anthropogenic era given that CO2 forcing is at an all time high and only will get higher. That is what makes the slowdown less likely to be a result of natural variation in a high sensitivity environment. Maybe all of it is a high sigma natural variation event, but then again we're talking in probabilities.

[skierinvermont]

Of course there is uncertainty in aerosols. However, if the climate system was super-sensitive to aerosols, then we'd see a higher response to volcanic eruptions. In reality, the CMIP5 models have actually predicted more response to volcanic eruptions than actually occurred.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017607/abstract;jsessionid=5501DDD9347F101A4CE62A2A06C9ED76.f01t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

 

http://www.clim-past.net/8/1551/2012/cp-8-1551-2012.html

 

 

Perhaps there is something special in volcanic eruptions that is not present in manmade aerosol emmissions. That is one possibility.

 

 

In addition, the natural variability component should be at its lowest influence at any point in the anthropogenic era given that CO2 forcing is at an all time high and only will get higher. That is what makes the slowdown less likely to be a result of natural variation in a high sensitivity environment. Maybe all of it is a high sigma natural variation event, but then again we're talking in probabilities.

 

Human and volcanic aerosols are totally different. Different particles, different parts of the atmosphere effected, and different effects on cloud formation. In addition, we don't even have good data on the actual concentrations if I recall correctly. So it's not simply a matter of knowing the forcing efficacy, it's also a matter of not knowing the concentrations themselves.

 

Aerosols throw a huge wrench into any short term conclusions about climate change. And yet skeptics and deniers, who so love to rave about feedback uncertainties, gloss over the largest uncertainty of all.

[ORH_wxman]

Human and volcanic aerosols are totally different. Different particles, different parts of the atmosphere effected, and different effects on cloud formation. In addition, we don't even have good data on the actual concentrations if I recall correctly. So it's not simply a matter of knowing the forcing efficacy, it's also a matter of not knowing the concentrations themselves.

 

Aerosols throw a huge wrench into any short term conclusions about climate change. And yet skeptics and deniers, who so love to rave about feedback uncertainties, gloss over the largest uncertainty of all.

 

Pretty much exactly what AGW alarmists do....except they have tended to ignore natural variability as well and only focus on GHG forcing. That is, until it became too obvious to ignore over the past decade-plus. The "uncertainty" card used to be a favorite target for alarmists calling it a strawman...and actually to some of the more ignorant ones it still is.

 

I don't think we really disagree that much qualitatively speaking. Though much of the aerosol uncertainty is indirect via cloud albedo...direct aerosol uncertainty is still large, but much lower than the cloud feedback.

[WXheights]

I'd be interested if ANYONE could name another science that has this much discontent other than "Medical science and Tobacco! That might illustrate something for some people.

 

There is no question that the whole AGW science is super threatening to some an the picayune-ness should be pretty obvious.  Do you think Astro physics gets as much attention and scrutiny? Not a chance.

 

So in that light - it stands to reason that there is probably equally as many who don't want you to know or belittle anything about the science and will do everything in their power to water it down muddy it up.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Uncertainty is irrelevent. 

 

 

If we knew a hostile alien species was out there in our area of the galaxy going to from planet to planet annialating species without the technology to move in space like they can would we ignore it and do nothing just because they may or may not come to Earth?  Or maybe something else will stop them.

 

Or should we start preparing as if they were going to come to Earth next? 

 

Unfortunitely we already did that.  We sat by and watched Hitler transform Germany into a powerful war machine capable of causing mass destruction and instead of being proactive about the huge change Germany was about to wreck a huge part of the world and human species with a decade or more of advanced warning.  We did nothing until it after Germany started killing millions of people. 

 

On top of that.  The Americans, the great noble self riteous heroic Americans were so short sided and selfish they refused to help their allies while Germany was slaughtering them.  No matter what FDR wanted to do the public would have none of it.  Until a **cking Island was attacked out in the middle of no where that almost no American knew of or has been there at that time.  And it was on like donkey kong.  Even though in the end The allies won and preserved democracy and an ERA of peace and prosperity arrived how much did it cost?

 

60 million humans died.  WOW.  In 5 years or so.  Unreal.  All because we were inactive about a threat that we knew could be catostrophic. 

 

History shows us that the majority of humans prefere to wait and be **cked vs being progressive and preventative inspite of a chance that it could be a waste of time.

 

What is a heatwave going to be like when the Earth is 2 or 3C warmer?

 

Is a place like St. Louis going to have a week of 110/90F?  How about the places where people die by the tens of thousands?  When the human population is 9-10 billion? 

 

If the debate is whether humans are resonsible or not then inaction is ethically and morally wrong if people are dying from it.

 

If the Earth was .8C cooler in 2003 and 2010 would those heat waves of been as deadly? 

 

Probably not.  Heat waves are not like cold spells.  They are at the end of their rope in terms of how much hotter and humid it can get before humans start dying without major resources for all.  very subtle changes can = major disasters for human life. 

 

 

The only time to be proactive is passing us by.  Which is the point.  We can't wait, we either do something now or hope and pray while we have locked in the death of millions of humans caused by their ancestors negligence. 

 

Better hope for one of those miraculous human inginuity things if we do cause environemntal catastrophe.  Maybe we will develop the technology to stop it but that is not realistic at this time.

[LakeEffectKing]

Uncertainty is irrelevent.

If we knew a hostile alien species was out there in our area of the galaxy going to from planet to planet annialating species without the technology to move in space like they can would we ignore it and do nothing just because they may or may not come to Earth? Or maybe something else will stop them.

Or should we start preparing as if they were going to come to Earth next?

Unfortunitely we already did that. We sat by and watched Hitler transform Germany into a powerful war machine capable of causing mass destruction and instead of being proactive about the huge change Germany was about to wreck a huge part of the world and human species with a decade or more of advanced warning. We did nothing until it after Germany started killing millions of people.

On top of that. The Americans, the great noble self riteous heroic Americans were so short sided and selfish they refused to help their allies while Germany was slaughtering them. No matter what FDR wanted to do the public would have none of it. Until a **cking Island was attacked out in the middle of no where that almost no American knew of or has been there at that time. And it was on like donkey kong. Even though in the end The allies won and preserved democracy and an ERA of peace and prosperity arrived how much did it cost?

60 million humans died. WOW. In 5 years or so. Unreal. All because we were inactive about a threat that we knew could be catostrophic.

History shows us that the majority of humans prefere to wait and be **cked vs being progressive and preventative inspite of a chance that it could be a waste of time.

What is a heatwave going to be like when the Earth is 2 or 3C warmer?

Is a place like St. Louis going to have a week of 110/90F? How about the places where people die by the tens of thousands? When the human population is 9-10 billion?

If the debate is whether humans are resonsible or not then inaction is ethically and morally wrong if people are dying from it.

If the Earth was .8C cooler in 2003 and 2010 would those heat waves of been as deadly?

Probably not. Heat waves are not like cold spells. They are at the end of their rope in terms of how much hotter and humid it can get before humans start dying without major resources for all. very subtle changes can = major disasters for human life.

The only time to be proactive is passing us by. Which is the point. We can't wait, we either do something now or hope and pray while we have locked in the death of millions of humans caused by their ancestors negligence.

Better hope for one of those miraculous human inginuity things if we do cause environemntal catastrophe. Maybe we will develop the technology to stop it but that is not realistic at this time.

Wow.....!Hello Mary Jane!

[Snow_Miser]

Uncertainty is not irrelevant Frivolous. I'll leave it at that.

[Sundog]

Uncertainty is not irrelevant Frivolous. I'll leave it at that.

Doing nothing when so much is at stake is unacceptable.

[Jonger]

Uncertainty is not irrelevant Frivolous. I'll leave it at that.

Doing nothing when so much is at stake is unacceptable.

When I drive on the expressway here, its a constant stream of wind turbine blades being hauled down the road, I can count at least 100 on any day.... So assuming "nothing" is being done is shortsighted.

[blizzard1024]

He welcomes the death of a skeptic as "cheering news." What a horrible person.

 

http://di2.nu/foia/1075403821.txt

 

I agree. This is horrible. The guy DIED.  As long as someone is not physically looking

to hurt/kill you or your family you never say something like this. period. This shows

how insane the warmist bunch have become. Some want to see people who opposed their

views die(or just go away).... They will be throwing a party if something happens to Anthony Watts...god forbid.

Anthony Watts and company have really made a lot of headway in challenging the

authoritarian view by the warmist elites. Are they always right? No...but they

are challenging the  real climate crowd...skeptical science and others.  Science

is supposed to be about uncertainties AND debate with DATA proving or disproving

theory. NOT models. anyway....it must kill them that the "watts up with that" website

gets way more hits than any other climate website!!!