- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
The Tottering AGW Paradigm [W:31]
- Thread starter Jack Hays
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
Hmmm. I'd say you showed nothing of the kind. You misread a graph and called it a victory. I have no idea what your Roy Spencer reference is about.
And you too are dodging the substance.
Hmmm. I'd say you showed nothing of the kind. You misread a graph and called it a victory. I have no idea what your Roy Spencer reference is about.
And you too are dodging the substance.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
Using CT blogs in lieu of actual science is dodging the substance.
Using CT blogs in lieu of actual science is dodging the substance.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
A partial list of references from the OP article.
[1] IPCC TAR. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/
[2] Farmer G.T., Cook J. (2013) Earth’s Albedo, Radiative Forcing and Climate Change. In: Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht.
[3] IPCC AR5. Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013
[4] Charney Report (1979). http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/charney_report1979.pdf
[5] Eyles, N. (2008). Glacio-epochs and the supercontinent cycle after ∼ 3.0 Ga: tectonic boundary conditions for glaciation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 258 (1), 89-129.
[6] Ahn, J., & Brook, E. J. (2014). Siple Dome ice reveals two modes of millennial CO2change during the last ice age. Nature communications, 5.
[7] Harsch, M. A., Hulme, P. E., McGlone, M. S., & Duncan, R. P. (2009). Are treelines advancing? A global meta‐analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecology letters, 12 (10), 1040-1049.
[8] Reasoner, M. A., & Tinner, W. (2009). Holocene treeline fluctuations. In Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments (pp. 442-446). Springer Netherlands.
[9] Cunill, R., Soriano, J. M., Bal, M. C., Pèlachs, A., & Pérez-Obiol, R. (2012). Holocene treeline changes on the south slope of the Pyrenees: a pedoanthracological analysis. Vegetation history and archaeobotany, 21 (4-5), 373-384.
[10] Pisaric, M. F., Holt, C., Szeicz, J. M., Karst, T., & Smol, J. P. (2003). Holocene treeline dynamics in the mountains of northeastern British Columbia, Canada, inferred from fossil pollen and stomata. The Holocene, 13 (2), 161-173.
[11] Lamb, H. H. (1995). Climate, history and the modern world. 2nd edition. Routledge. London. Pg. 172.
[12] BBC News. February, 3, 2010. BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones 13
[13] Fasullo, J. T., Nerem, R. S., & Hamlington, B. (2016). Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?. Scientific reports, 6, 31245.
[14] Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J. C., Grinsted, A., & Woodworth, P. L. (2008). Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?. Geophysical Research Letters, 35 (8).
[15] IPCC AR5. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
[16] IPCC FAR. 1990. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
[17] IPCC TAR WG2. 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php
[18] IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report. 2007. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-3-2.html
A partial list of references from the OP article.
[1] IPCC TAR. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/
[2] Farmer G.T., Cook J. (2013) Earth’s Albedo, Radiative Forcing and Climate Change. In: Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht.
[3] IPCC AR5. Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013
[4] Charney Report (1979). http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/charney_report1979.pdf
[5] Eyles, N. (2008). Glacio-epochs and the supercontinent cycle after ∼ 3.0 Ga: tectonic boundary conditions for glaciation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 258 (1), 89-129.
[6] Ahn, J., & Brook, E. J. (2014). Siple Dome ice reveals two modes of millennial CO2change during the last ice age. Nature communications, 5.
[7] Harsch, M. A., Hulme, P. E., McGlone, M. S., & Duncan, R. P. (2009). Are treelines advancing? A global meta‐analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecology letters, 12 (10), 1040-1049.
[8] Reasoner, M. A., & Tinner, W. (2009). Holocene treeline fluctuations. In Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments (pp. 442-446). Springer Netherlands.
[9] Cunill, R., Soriano, J. M., Bal, M. C., Pèlachs, A., & Pérez-Obiol, R. (2012). Holocene treeline changes on the south slope of the Pyrenees: a pedoanthracological analysis. Vegetation history and archaeobotany, 21 (4-5), 373-384.
[10] Pisaric, M. F., Holt, C., Szeicz, J. M., Karst, T., & Smol, J. P. (2003). Holocene treeline dynamics in the mountains of northeastern British Columbia, Canada, inferred from fossil pollen and stomata. The Holocene, 13 (2), 161-173.
[11] Lamb, H. H. (1995). Climate, history and the modern world. 2nd edition. Routledge. London. Pg. 172.
[12] BBC News. February, 3, 2010. BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones 13
[13] Fasullo, J. T., Nerem, R. S., & Hamlington, B. (2016). Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?. Scientific reports, 6, 31245.
[14] Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J. C., Grinsted, A., & Woodworth, P. L. (2008). Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?. Geophysical Research Letters, 35 (8).
[15] IPCC AR5. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
[16] IPCC FAR. 1990. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
[17] IPCC TAR WG2. 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php
[18] IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report. 2007. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-3-2.html
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
The rest of the references:
[19] National Geographic. June 20, 2008. North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer
[20] The Telegraph. September 16, 2010. Arctic ice could be gone by 2030 - Telegraph
[21] Javier 2017. Some Failed Climate Predictions. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/
[22] Fernando Leanme 2014. https://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/burn-baby-burn-co2-atmospheric.html
[23] Wang, J., Feng, L., Tang, X., Bentley, Y., & Höök, M. (2017). The implications of fossil fuel
The rest of the references:
[19] National Geographic. June 20, 2008. North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer
[20] The Telegraph. September 16, 2010. Arctic ice could be gone by 2030 - Telegraph
[21] Javier 2017. Some Failed Climate Predictions. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/
[22] Fernando Leanme 2014. https://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/burn-baby-burn-co2-atmospheric.html
[23] Wang, J., Feng, L., Tang, X., Bentley, Y., & Höök, M. (2017). The implications of fossil fuel
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,710
- Reaction score
- 35,488
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
| Moderator's Warning: |
 Alright folks, if you want to have a debate about the source being used, start a thread about that. The derailment and focus on that has gone way too far from the topic at this point. If you want to question the source as part of an overall on-topic posts, fine. But continued one liners that are just mocking or bitching about the source and not contributing anything to actual discussions of the topic need to end |
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
Thanks, well said.
Moderator's Warning:
Thanks, well said.
Surface Detail
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2016
- Messages
- 3,244
- Reaction score
- 1,232
- Location
- English Midlands
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
The author of the source is arguing against a straw man. Nobody is claiming, as he seems to think, that CO2 is the only driver of climate change.
The author of the source is arguing against a straw man. Nobody is claiming, as he seems to think, that CO2 is the only driver of climate change.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,500
- Reaction score
- 22,160
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
In a way they do. The IPCC et. al. has consistently had the total warming about equal to the claimed CO2 warming. I think we all agree their assumed total from the AR4 if 1.6 W/m^2 is correct, but they also claim CO2 has a forcing of 1.66 Wm^2. They effectively do claim all\warming is from CO2, as they have the other variables pretty much cancel each other out.
In a way they do. The IPCC et. al. has consistently had the total warming about equal to the claimed CO2 warming. I think we all agree their assumed total from the AR4 if 1.6 W/m^2 is correct, but they also claim CO2 has a forcing of 1.66 Wm^2. They effectively do claim all\warming is from CO2, as they have the other variables pretty much cancel each other out.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Surface Detail
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2016
- Messages
- 3,244
- Reaction score
- 1,232
- Location
- English Midlands
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
No, I'm not. The increase in concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is primarily responsible for the current and future upward trend, but other influences add noise to this trend in the form of temporary accelerations, drops and plateaus.
No, I'm not. The increase in concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is primarily responsible for the current and future upward trend, but other influences add noise to this trend in the form of temporary accelerations, drops and plateaus.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
Just weasel words. Were the orthodox AGW proponents not so committed to CO2 as the source of warming then there would not be such resistance to the low climate sensitivity apparent in the observational record.
Just weasel words. Were the orthodox AGW proponents not so committed to CO2 as the source of warming then there would not be such resistance to the low climate sensitivity apparent in the observational record.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,556
- Reaction score
- 28,917
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
Sorry, but no. From the OP article:
Most of these predictions arise from models that have not been properly validated and do not adequately represent the climate response to increased CO2. The current crop of models used by IPCC, CMIP5, shows a worrisome deviation from observations just a few years after being initialized in 2006 (figure 3).
Yet....they got it right.
Sorry, but no. From the OP article:
Most of these predictions arise from models that have not been properly validated and do not adequately represent the climate response to increased CO2. The current crop of models used by IPCC, CMIP5, shows a worrisome deviation from observations just a few years after being initialized in 2006 (figure 3).
Figure 3. Model CMIP5 temperature anomaly under the RCP 4.5 scenario, compared to observed HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly, both relative to 1961-1990 baseline.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,500
- Reaction score
- 22,160
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,500
- Reaction score
- 22,160
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
I don't think he realizes what SRES A1B is.
Sorry, but no. From the OP article:
Most of these predictions arise from models that have not been properly validated and do not adequately represent the climate response to increased CO2. The current crop of models used by IPCC, CMIP5, shows a worrisome deviation from observations just a few years after being initialized in 2006 (figure 3).
Figure 3. Model CMIP5 temperature anomaly under the RCP 4.5 scenario, compared to observed HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly, both relative to 1961-1990 baseline.
I don't think he realizes what SRES A1B is.
Russell797
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 4,394
- Reaction score
- 1,063
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
That's because the other variables either are not currently applicable or they do cancel out over time periods 30 years and longer.
That's because the other variables either are not currently applicable or they do cancel out over time periods 30 years and longer.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,556
- Reaction score
- 28,917
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
Not sure why they would use RCP 4.5 instead of the emissions path we are actually on, but in the short term it’s probably similar.
And it looks like the models are pretty darn spot on.
Sorry, but no. From the OP article:
Most of these predictions arise from models that have not been properly validated and do not adequately represent the climate response to increased CO2. The current crop of models used by IPCC, CMIP5, shows a worrisome deviation from observations just a few years after being initialized in 2006 (figure 3).
Figure 3. Model CMIP5 temperature anomaly under the RCP 4.5 scenario, compared to observed HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly, both relative to 1961-1990 baseline.
Not sure why they would use RCP 4.5 instead of the emissions path we are actually on, but in the short term it’s probably similar.
And it looks like the models are pretty darn spot on.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
Not so much. Again from the OP article.
". . . Despite the recent El Niño, temperatures do not show a significant deviation from a linear increase since 1950, while models predict a much higher rate of warming. . . ."
Not so much. Again from the OP article.
". . . Despite the recent El Niño, temperatures do not show a significant deviation from a linear increase since 1950, while models predict a much higher rate of warming. . . ."
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,500
- Reaction score
- 22,160
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Russell797
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 4,394
- Reaction score
- 1,063
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
There is no "resistance" to the possibility of low ECS. The range 1.5C to 4.5C is intact.. That means 1.5 to 2.0 remains a possibility.
It is you who wants to cherry pick the low end as more probable than not.
There is no "resistance" to the possibility of low ECS. The range 1.5C to 4.5C is intact.. That means 1.5 to 2.0 remains a possibility.
It is you who wants to cherry pick the low end as more probable than not.
Russell797
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 4,394
- Reaction score
- 1,063
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
What statement? Be explicit...I get in enough trouble being misinterpreted.
What statement? Be explicit...I get in enough trouble being misinterpreted.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,500
- Reaction score
- 22,160
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
Yet you refuse to accept that it can be less than 1.5C.
You are just a denier of science. You believe the statistics that the scientists SWAG for that range, when in reality, they have no way of claiming, with any integrity, that it is the 95% range. Besides, statistics dio not make facts. Especially when dealing with so many variables with so few significant digits of quantification.
Yet you refuse to accept that it can be less than 1.5C.
You are just a denier of science. You believe the statistics that the scientists SWAG for that range, when in reality, they have no way of claiming, with any integrity, that it is the 95% range. Besides, statistics dio not make facts. Especially when dealing with so many variables with so few significant digits of quantification.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,500
- Reaction score
- 22,160
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
That false statement that CO2 account for the warming we see.
That false statement that CO2 account for the warming we see.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm
. . . The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. . . .
Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic
. . . The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. . . .
Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic