Foundation of a New Climate Paradigm

bubbabgone said:

To you the Himalaya glacier scandal was trivial and so long ago that it was no big deal.

Click to expand...

That's because... It was trivial, and it was a long time ago.

And there's only been one report since AR4 and it's peddling the same false stories.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Or: The IPCC has been properly summarizing the science for well over a decade, and its claims are not falsified by one trivial error out of tens of thousands (if hundreds of thousands) of claims.

" ... AR5 goes further [than AR4], concluding that many observed changes (warming of the atmosphere and ocean, sea level rise and melting ice) are “unprecedented over decades to millennia.”

Click to expand...

News flash! The AR5 is correct. It doesn't say "there was never any change this rapid ever in the history of the planet," they said "in recent millenia."

Guess what? No, guess! Oh, okay, I'll tell you: The planet has not had climate changes like this in thousands of years. I have given you links, at least twice, to a definitive study which confirms how the changes during the Industrial Era (i.e. due to human activity) are significantly different than naturally caused events over the past 2000 years, and you still ignore the evidence.

Here is another study, which goes back to the end of the last Ice Age -- when it took 2000 years for temperatures to rise by 1C. I.e. current temperatures are rising 10 times faster than at the end of the last Ice Age.
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation | Nature

But hey, who cares about facts and scientific findings, as long as you can cherry-pick decade-old complaints and cite a handful of paid-off deniers? To wit....

"There just isn’t any nice way to say this—it’s is an outright lie....

Click to expand...

There just isn't any nice way to say this: Don Easterbrook is liar. He's a climate change denier, who works for Heartland, and is flat-out wrong on the science. He denies that CO2 is a GHG, and falsely claims that "warming stopped in 1998."

So it looks like they're still ignoring reviewers.

Click to expand...

Some reviewers ought to be ignored.

Are they still letting government reps control the SPMs?

Click to expand...

Good grief. You're like a guy complaining that the bartender served you alcohol.

The entire purpose of the IPCC is to summarize the current science for governments.
Government officials are, by design, a part of the process.
If those officials were distorting the papers that are EXPLICITLY LISTED IN THE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHIES, then the scientific community would be constantly pointing out those distortions. And news flash! That doesn't happen.

You obviously don't understand how or why the IPCC works; you misconstrue the criticisms; you misrepresent the critics; and you don't understand the science. And you've been hawking the same lies and distortions for years.

I think it's clear that your position is bankrupt. 'Bye Felicia.

Lord of Planar said:

No it is still possible.

If you are heating water in a pot on an electric burner, and you change the dial. does the heat in the burner instantly change, or does it contain some thermal inertia?

Try this.

Turn the burner in HIGH and leave it for two minute. Then turn it off, and put your hand on it. It went back to room temperature instantaneously, right or wrong?

Consider the sun the dial, the burner the ocean, and the pot of water the atmosphere. If you experiment with timing, you will find a time cycle you can turn the burner on for X seconds, turn it off, and still have the water raise in temperature while the burner is off. You will find the water will raise in temperature for several seconds, maybe minutes after the burner is turned off, before it peaks and starts cooling again.

Try it!

The larger the scale, the longer the lag. Oceans and thermal heat are huge. The time is very long.

Click to expand...

Er, no. The temperature of the pot of water will not continue to rise after the burner is turned off. Why on Earth do you think it would? The pot of water will immediately begin to cool when you turn the burner off.

Visbek said:

.....

Click to expand...

Trivial things don't trigger wide-ranging reviews like the IAC did. Sorry, but you've lost this one too.

Recent millennia means recent thousands of years. That would include the MWP. Woops, you lost another one. But it does raise a question that should have occurred to you. Why are only recent millennia important ?
You know, because it leaves out other known interglacial warm periods like Roman and Minoan.
Nevermind, carefully selecting timeframes is de rigeur for alarmists.

You said "The entire purpose of the IPCC is to summarize the current science for governments.
Government officials are, by design, a part of the process.
If those officials were distorting the papers that are EXPLICITLY LISTED IN THE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHIES, then the scientific community would be constantly pointing out those distortions. And news flash! That doesn't happen."
News flash for you, it has. That was how it got into the IAC review.
FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE:
4. Given the intergovernmental nature of IPCC, what are your views on the role of
governments in the entire process?
The governments are failing to insist open and full disclosure of data, working communications
and uncertainties.
2a. Scoping and identification of policy questions
Bam! A problem right off the bat! What about if we take "policy questions" right out of the IPCC
process, so that the climate scientists don't have to be (or feel) hamstrung by government
policymakers?
4. Given the intergovernmental nature of IPCC, what are your views on the role of
governments in the entire process?
Don't get me going on this one!! The IPCC might be intergovernmental, but it should be
completely free of governmental influence and interference. That any government can veto any
word in the Summary for Policymakers is, frankly, disgusting politics.
4. Given the intergovernmental nature of IPCC, what are your views on the role of
governments in the entire process?
there is too much influece of Governments on the entire process
4. Given the intergovernmental nature of IPCC, what are your views on the role of
governments in the entire process?
Too much pressure from Governments to find evidence of global warming

It is wrong and intolerable for the IPCC scientists to be ordered to omit the very greatest risks
and dangers of global climate change because of paucity or wide ranging scientific research
results. This is the very opposite of a risk assessment and a certain formula for permitting (and
committing) global climate catastrophe.
The IPCC scientists must be permitted by intergovernmental instruction to make
recommendations on global climate change risks, catastrophic risk aversion to population health
and survival, and to safe and dangerous climate interference and global climate changes.
I am very sad to have to say that the IPCC make up, procedures and last assessment are unethical
and unscientific.
4. Given the intergovernmental nature of IPCC, what are your views on the role of
governments in the entire process?
There should be no government involvement in the scientific risk assessment which should be
carried out at arm‘s length from governments to be submitted to governments and to the public
when completed by the scientists. Actual government involvement in a scientific environmental
health assessment is unheard of.
4. Given the intergovernmental nature of IPCC, what are your views on the role of
governments in the entire process?
Hopeless – see Q. 2 above. This is NOT the way to conduct a scientific debate.

and on and on.

Ya know what they say about three strikes.

Here's a quote from Judy Curry about consensus that you might view as particularly relevant for people like yourself ... because it is ...
"I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus, based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.
And what have I concluded from this assessment?

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is dangerous."

longview said:

Why do you think it is a black or white issue? If more of the observed warming is from solar activity,
it does not invalidate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it only reduces the possible sensitivity of added CO2.

Click to expand...

Sooo.... doesn't it stand to reason and seem prudent that we try to control the factors that we CAN control, like CO2 output?

It's a little like someone who has a strong family history of high cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and subsequent early heart attacks. They have a strong genetic/familial predisposition. But does that mean that they should not try to watch their diet and exercise?

Surface Detail said:

That is equally nonsensical. Look, it's very simple. The energy input from solar energy has been falling for decades, but the temperature is continuing to rise at an unabated rate. This is thermodynamically impossible unless some other effect is reducing the rate at which energy is lost. The obvious candidate for that other effect is AGW. I really don't see why you find this so difficult to comprehend/accept.

Click to expand...

Shaviv 's theory, has little to do with solar energy from the sun, the basis is that some factor from the sun, loosely related to TSI,
regulates the field around the earth that block many of the cosmic rays, less of the signal more cosmic ray formed clouds, more of the available
solar energy is blocked from getting to the surface.
An active sun, blocks the cloud forming rays, and allows more solar energy to get to the surface.
kind of like a solar amplifier or solar attenuator.

ataraxia said:

Sooo.... doesn't it stand to reason and seem prudent that we try to control the factors that we CAN control, like CO2 output?

Click to expand...

No! the prudent thing would be to evaluate the actual sensitivity, for the purpose of doing a cost benefit analysis.
We should keep working on energy efficiency, but should not bother to worry about CO2 unless the sensitivity can be validated.
Energy from oil will decline on it's own as the price naturally raises, supply and demand.
Whatever takes the place of the fuels we get from oil, will emerge as the best market selected choice.
This will all work, unless government regulation disrupts the normal market forces.

longview said:

Shaviv 's theory, has little to do with solar energy from the sun, the basis is that some factor from the sun, loosely related to TSI,
regulates the field around the earth that block many of the cosmic rays, less of the signal more cosmic ray formed clouds, more of the available
solar energy is blocked from getting to the surface.
An active sun, blocks the cloud forming rays, and allows more solar energy to get to the surface.
kind of like a solar amplifier or solar attenuator.

Click to expand...

Even Shaviv doesn't deny that human produced CO2 is playing a role.

Even if he's right, there's not much we can do about the sun. There is stuff we can do about our CO2.

longview said:

No! the prudent thing would be to evaluate the actual sensitivity, for the purpose of doing a cost benefit analysis.
We should keep working on energy efficiency, but should not bother to worry about CO2 unless the sensitivity can be validated.
Energy from oil will decline on it's own as the price naturally raises, supply and demand.
Whatever takes the place of the fuels we get from oil, will emerge as the best market selected choice.
This will all work, unless government regulation disrupts the normal market forces.

Click to expand...

How can we be sure that this market-driven drop in oil price will be in time to prevent catastrophe? It almost seems like magical thinking to think that these two disparate factors are going to get together and talk out the timing between themselves to make sure they don't hurt us too bad.

ataraxia said:

Even Shaviv doesn't deny that human produced CO2 is playing a role.

Even if he's right, there's not much we can do about the sun. There is stuff we can do about our CO2.

Click to expand...

No one said that human produced CO2 is not playing a role, the question is how much of a role?
Total warming since 1900 is ~.90C (Hadcrut4). if 0.5°C is from the unknown process, and an additional .28°C is from known
natural processes (TSI increases since 1850), then CO2 contributed a few hundredth of a °C .
All of our efforts, all the hardships that have been and will be imposed, would buy us nearly nothing!
Addressing our real problem of energy will address any issues that may exists with CO2 as a side effect.

bubbabgone said:

Trivial things don't trigger wide-ranging reviews like the IAC did.

Click to expand...

So if they do wide-ranging reviews, they must be wrong. If they don't do wide-ranging reviews, you must be right. Heads I win, tails you lose! Right?

Nice set-up ya got there. :lamo

There should be no government involvement in the scientific risk assessment which should be
carried out at arm‘s length from governments to be submitted to governments and to the public
when completed by the scientists. Actual government involvement in a scientific environmental
health assessment is unheard of.

Click to expand...

The government has nothing to do with the scientists working for Exxon Mobile.

"ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in the forefront of climate research for four decades, understanding and working with the world’s leading experts on climate. Our research in climate science has resulted in nearly 150 publicly available papers, including more than 50 peer-reviewed publications, and nearly 300 patents for cutting-edge technological advances in emissions reductions and other related applications....

We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us — business, governments and consumers — to make meaningful progress."
Climate change | ExxonMobil

Click to expand...

ataraxia said:

How can we be sure that this market-driven drop in oil price will be in time to prevent catastrophe? It almost seems like magical thinking to think that these two disparate factors are going to get together and talk out the timing between themselves to make sure they don't hurt us too bad.

Click to expand...

in time to prevent catastrophe?

Click to expand...

How do you know there is a catastrophe waiting? You are assuming that the slight observed warming it automatically tied to catastrophe.
I can tell you that, that is not what the physics tells us.
CO2 is for all practical purposes saturated in the primary bands, remaining effects, while possible,
would need to be displayed on a log scale, they are so small.
Earth has been several degrees warmer in the past million years, and no tipping point, or other catastrophic thresholds were passed.
The sea level and CO2 level do not appear to be linked,

All of the real catastrophic studies are "what If" assuming the highest sensitivity, combined with the highest emission scenarios.
Fracking oil wells, only shortens the life of the wells, they will run dry quicker, and then the price of oil will increase.

longview said:

No one said that human produced CO2 is not playing a role, the question is how much of a role?

Click to expand...

That would be fine, if the uncertainty in the effect of CO2 did not cut the other way as well:

The global warming of 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) that has taken place since 1900 suggests that, if there were no aerosol influence, the effect of CO2 doubling on mean global temperature would be rather low — a rise of 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit). But, the likelihood that aerosols have been offsetting some of the warming caused by CO2 all along, says Schwartz, means that the observed 0.5-degree-Celsius temperature rise is just the part of the CO2 effect we can “see” — the tip of the greenhouse “iceberg.” So the effect of doubling CO2, holding everything else constant, he says, might be three or more times as great.
Climate Uncertainty With CO2 Rise Due To Uncertainty About Aerosols -- ScienceDaily

Click to expand...

If you're not exactly sure how thick or thin the ice is that you're walking on, does it mean you just keep barreling along, or take extra care in how hard you step?

longview said:

How do you know there is a catastrophe waiting? You are assuming that the slight observed warming it automatically tied to catastrophe.

Click to expand...

You are right there is some uncertainty. When walking on thin ice, doesn't it make sense to tread carefully?

The sea level and CO2 level do not appear to be linked

Click to expand...

Where do you think all the melted Greenland ice going? What's to keep it from melting further?

Also, in thermodynamics, when a substance is getting ready to shift from one phase to another (ice to water), there is always a bit of a lag as there is energy that stops going into heating up the substance and goes into breaking apart the bonds. But once the ice does start to melt, it can go very, very fast.

longview said:

All of the real catastrophic studies are "what If" assuming the highest sensitivity, combined with the highest emission scenarios.
Fracking oil wells, only shortens the life of the wells, they will run dry quicker, and then the price of oil will increase.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't see how you are sure the timing is going to work just right. I mean, it would be miraculous if things in real life always timed themselves to make sure they don't hurt humans like that. It sounds like magical thinking.

ataraxia said:

The countries most at risk of getting hurt by climate change are the poorer countries.

Study: Global Warming Hits Poorest Nations Hardest - Eos

America has gotten to be a wealthy, developed nation through the process of industrialization over the last century and a half. But that process and generated pollution that is now posing a serious, often existential threat to these places in the world.

And now you are telling us that America should have no responsibility to them? Tough luck? Too bad, so sad?

You don’t see anything ethically or morally wrong with this? Is this what Christian love and loving thy neighbor is all about?

Click to expand...

You got it! The global socialist highway robbers see America as the crown jewel of nations to be seized and sucked dry of wealth like Venezuela. They are not interested in the poor of the world except to use them as pawns in their lying climate change narratives designed to pave their way into enriching themselves with Americans' money like a bunch of gutter savage barbarian crooks.

ataraxia said:

That would be fine, if the uncertainty in the effect of CO2 did not cut the other way as well:



If you're not exactly sure how thick or thin the ice is that you're walking on, does it mean you just keep barreling along, or take extra care in how hard you step?

Click to expand...

Except that the observed warming is all we have to work with, so the curve cannot cut the other way.
The attributable amount is simply what is left after we remove the other know contributors.
Moving some of the attribution to something other than CO2, only lowers CO2's contribution.
Aerosols may have contributed to cooling before 1980, but regulations reduced aerosol emissions to the point that
lowering aerosols could have also contributed to some of the observed warming,
further lowering CO2's contribution!

ataraxia said:

You are right there is some uncertainty. When walking on thin ice, doesn't it make sense to tread carefully?



Where do you think all the melted Greenland ice going? What's to keep it from melting further?

Also, in thermodynamics, when a substance is getting ready to shift from one phase to another (ice to water), there is always a bit of a lag as there is energy that stops going into heating up the substance and goes into breaking apart the bonds. But once the ice does start to melt, it can go very, very fast.

Click to expand...

What empirical data show the ice is thin?
If the ice caps were actually loosing mass, then we would expect to see acceleration in the sea level rise,
but any such acceleration is still down in the noise.

ataraxia said:

Again, I don't see how you are sure the timing is going to work just right. I mean, it would be miraculous if things in real life always timed themselves to make sure they don't hurt humans like that. It sounds like magical thinking.

Click to expand...

It is a question of which causes the least harm, and letting the market forces work out the best solution,
in my opinion seems to be the path that will cause the least harm.
There is no data that supports any type of tipping point, and the observed warming is mostly beneficial,
warming the portions of the climate people like the least (nighttime and winter lows).
The choice is benign warming, and market forces, vs a major societal overhaul, possibly reducing the food security of billions of people.

Surface Detail said:

Er, no. The temperature of the pot of water will not continue to rise after the burner is turned off. Why on Earth do you think it would? The pot of water will immediately begin to cool when you turn the burner off.

Click to expand...

But it can if the timing is right. The burner will heat quickly to several hundred degrees. As it just starts to warm the water, if you turn it off, it still has heat to warm the water more.

Damn, you really don't know how things work. You are more clueless than I thought.

If you think I'm wrong, then turn a burner on for a minute, turn it off, then firmly plant your hand on it. Tell us if it's still hot or not.

If it will burn your hand after you turn it off, then why won't it still add heat to the water when you turn it off?

Please explain...

ataraxia said:

So it sounds like you think all modern science is bunk. Interesting.

Click to expand...

No just climate Jihadism. I'm a skeptic because of science not in spite of it :wink:

ataraxia said:

Do you think there a chance Shaviv could be wrong, and the rest of the scientific community correct?

Click to expand...

Unlikely.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest post by Paul Dorian Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. The recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the recent low…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

Jack Hays said:

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/12/deep-solar-minimum-on-the-verge-of-an-historic-milestone/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest post by Paul Dorian Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. The recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the recent low…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/12/deep-solar-minimum-on-the-verge-of-an-historic-milestone/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Explain your opposition to AGW.

AProudLefty said:

Explain your opposition to AGW.

Click to expand...

Not opposed. I merely believe it is not the sole powerful climate driver, and as a result there is no prospect of catastrophe in the 21st century. Details are fully covered in the OP.

Jack Hays said:

Not opposed. I merely believe it is not the sole powerful climate driver, and as a result there is no prospect of catastrophe in the 21st century. Details are fully covered in the OP.

Click to expand...

But nobody is claiming that it'll be a catastrophe.