Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

[longview]

I have no interest in your denier rabbit holes.

Maybe you could learn about the issue and let us know why it’s different from your number.

I’ve got a good guess...but apparently you haven’t even thought about it far enough to get to that point


Because deniers just need to deny, not actually think.

What am I denying?
You posted a graph showing how the CIMP5 model was doing compared to the HadCRUT.4.6.0.0. Global temperature.
The link to the graph said it was up to ands including 2018.
Gareth S Jones (@GarethSJones1) | Twitter
The final point on the graph that is supposed to be HadCRUT.4.6.0.0. 2018 Global temperature,
is clearly above .9 C.
The actual HadCRUT.4.6.0.0. 2018 Global temperature is .595 C.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
so again what am I denying and how is citing the correct data a rabbit hole?

 

[Threegoofs]

What am I denying?
You posted a graph showing how the CIMP5 model was doing compared to the HadCRUT.4.6.0.0. Global temperature.
The link to the graph said it was up to ands including 2018.
Gareth S Jones (@GarethSJones1) | Twitter
The final point on the graph that is supposed to be HadCRUT.4.6.0.0. 2018 Global temperature,
is clearly above .9 C.
The actual HadCRUT.4.6.0.0. 2018 Global temperature is .595 C.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
so again what am I denying and how is citing the correct data a rabbit hole?

As I said... think about it for a while.

 

[longview]

Rather obviously, because they are given relative to different baselines. The graph shows temperatures relative to an 1880 - 1919 baseline, while the HadCRUT data lists anomalies relative to a 1961 - 1990 baseline.

And they say there's no such thing as a stupid question!

Fair enough! I see that, but does that mean that was the baseline that CIMP5 used?
Published papers on CIMP5 look like they use a 1986-2005 baseline.

Time series of global mean surface temperature change (GMST, in C) under RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 relative to a
baseline period of 1986–2005 for a representative subset of models.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad2e4/pdf
Perhaps the author of the blog wanted it to appear that the models were matching observations.
it will be interesting to see how much the delta is between the 1880 - 1919 baseline and the 1961 - 1990 baseline.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

John Christy specialiazes in unpublished propaganda graphics like those below for fossil fuel funded right wing think tanks. I guess you never bothered to do any fact checking before mindlessly repeating a science denier lie?

View attachment 67251549
Read how Christy dishonestly misleads in his unpublished graphics:
Comparing models to the satellite datasets


The models have been doing pretty well.

View attachment 67251551
Gareth S Jones: "Updated comparison of simulations of past climate (CMIP5) with observed global temperatures (HadCRUT4) up to and including 2018.… https://t.co/gnUg06biDa"

The only dishonesty is that brought into the discussion by RealClimate.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Why Climate Models Run Hot[/h][FONT=&quot]by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…
[/FONT]

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

I will take exception to that graph, it looks like the Northern Hemisphere graph, and not the global graph,
This is obvious by the end points.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
2018 on HadCRUT.4.6.0.0. Global is at .738 C, but the presented graph clearly shows it ending above 1 C, and the
URL says they included 2018.
Also the graph was supposedly using an input the RCP4.5 scenario, this means the observed is much lower than the predicted,
since the actual emissions are closer to RCP6.0.
The posted graph shows that the model run with rcp4.5 had a center of about 1.15 C with a lower 5-95% range at ~.89C
I have added a red spot to the center and a blue spot to the lower 5-95% range of the Harcrut 4.6.0.0. graph that the CRU has on their web site.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
View attachment 67251563
So I am not so sure the models are really doing well!

Who cares what you 'take exception to". You've shown you don't have a clue

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

The only dishonesty is that brought into the discussion by RealClimate.

We know you will always choose dishonesty, lies, pseudoscience and conspiracies over science. You don't need to remind us every day.

 

[longview]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

Who cares what you 'take exception to". You've shown you don't have a clue

I was pointing out that the temperatures on the graph did not match the temperatures from the claimed source.
They author skewed them up by selecting a cherry picker baseline.
Who else used an 1880 to 1919 baseline?

 

[Surface Detail]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

I was pointing out that the temperatures on the graph did not match the temperatures from the claimed source.
They author skewed them up by selecting a cherry picker baseline.
Who else used an 1880 to 1919 baseline?

Oh, for heaven's sake! :doh

 

[longview]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

Oh, for heaven's sake! :doh

It is a fair question, who else used that baseline?

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

We know you will always choose dishonesty, lies, pseudoscience and conspiracies over science. You don't need to remind us every day.

I'm sorry your default move is to insult other posters.

 

[code1211]

Yes, that's one of the reasons why global warming from manmade CO2 can exacerbate on itself.

Did it "global warming from manmade CO2 can exacerbate on itself" to end the last Ice Age? How about the previous 4 Ice Ages?

How about the warmest point during the Holocene 8000 years ago?

How about the warmest points of all previous interglacials which were 3 degrees warmer than today?

My point is this:

YOU are saying that CO2 produced by Man is the cause of this unprecedented warming and that Man can both control and direct the climate of the planet by adjusting the emission of CO2.

I am only saying that scientific data reveals that the globe has been warmer, much warmer, when CO2 was lower, much lower.

How do YOU square this circle?

 

[Media_Truth]

Did it "global warming from manmade CO2 can exacerbate on itself" to end the last Ice Age? How about the previous 4 Ice Ages?

How about the warmest point during the Holocene 8000 years ago?

How about the warmest points of all previous interglacials which were 3 degrees warmer than today?

My point is this:

YOU are saying that CO2 produced by Man is the cause of this unprecedented warming and that Man can both control and direct the climate of the planet by adjusting the emission of CO2.

I am only saying that scientific data reveals that the globe has been warmer, much warmer, when CO2 was lower, much lower.

How do YOU square this circle?

I don't need to "square this circle". We don't know all the external factors from those time periods. We know the external factors today. For example, there was a slowdown to warming after Mount Pinataubo erupted in 1991.

Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo

Pinatubo injected about 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it reacted with water to form a hazy layer of aerosol particles composed primarily of sulfuric acid droplets. Over the course of the next two years strong stratospheric winds spread these aerosol particles around the globe.
...
Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).

Science is predicting climate, and the effect of manmade CO2, very accurately. You can look at ice core samples from hundreds of thousands years ago, and draw any conclusion you want - pro or anti AGW. We're living here and now - I suggest you read studies by the major scientific groups...

 

[code1211]

I don't need to "square this circle". We don't know all the external factors from those time periods. We know the external factors today. For example, there was a slowdown to warming after Mount Pinataubo erupted in 1991.

Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo

Pinatubo injected about 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it reacted with water to form a hazy layer of aerosol particles composed primarily of sulfuric acid droplets. Over the course of the next two years strong stratospheric winds spread these aerosol particles around the globe.
...
Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).

Science is predicting climate, and the effect of manmade CO2, very accurately. You can look at ice core samples from hundreds of thousands years ago, and draw any conclusion you want - pro or anti AGW. We're living here and now - I suggest you read studies by the major scientific groups...

So, then, you're agreeing that the connection between CO2 and the climate is not a strong one. Other factors have a much stronger impact on the global climate.

Got it!

Kinda makes ya wonder what all the hullabaloo over the CO2 concentration is about, doesn't it?

You might want to review this:

Diminishing Impact of Increased CO2

<snip>
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” --Richard P. Feynman
<snip>

 

[Threegoofs]

So, then, you're agreeing that the connection between CO2 and the climate is not a strong one. Other factors have a much stronger impact on the global climate.

Got it!

Kinda makes ya wonder what all the hullabaloo over the CO2 concentration is about, doesn't it?

You might want to review this:

Diminishing Impact of Increased CO2

<snip>
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” --Richard P. Feynman
<snip>

 

[Jack Hays]

CMIP5:


Why Climate Models Run Hot

by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…

 

[Threegoofs]

CMIP5:


Why Climate Models Run Hot

by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…

No. CMIP5 (from a published source, not a laughable denier blog):

 

[Jack Hays]

No. CMIP5 (from a published source, not a laughable denier blog):

No evidence of any "published source." Sorry, no standing.

 

[Threegoofs]

No evidence of any "published source." Sorry, no standing.

It’s been explained to you before.

Funny how when I don’t have a published source, it’s ‘no standing’. When you don’t have a published source, it’s ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Jack Hays]

It’s been explained to you before.

Funny how when I don’t have a published source, it’s ‘no standing’. When you don’t have a published source, it’s ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My graphs are always linked. "Published source" is your claim.

 

[Media_Truth]

Melting ice is a given, with warmer oceans.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Melting ice is a given, with warmer oceans.

If the Arctic ocean has less surface ice on it it will cause increased snowfall on Greenland. This will cause ice mass to build up more quickly on Greenland. The ice mass will only come back into balance once the thickness of ice has become sufficient that the flowrate of glaciers equals this level of input. That may well never happen.

 

[jmotivator]

Don't understand. What is wrong with taking steps to reduce coal burning and other contributers to pollution? As McCain said, even if the science is wrong, most of the prescriptions have other beneficial effects. We are better off less dependent on oil, with higher gas mileage, less acid rain.

It's a balancing act. The issue is you have to reject all of the down sides in order to reach the position of "benefit". An example wold be wind turbines. Is wind generated electricity worth more than the hundreds of thousands of soaring birds killed by them? The noise pollution? It's that kind of honest analysis that CAGW panic specifically fights against to preserve the "DO IT NOOOOOW!" hysteria.

 

[jmotivator]

Melting ice is a given, with warmer oceans.

Ice melt in Alaska uncovered a 1000 year old Alaskan forest. Did that forest grow under the ice? :shrug:

 

[Nickyjo]

It's a balancing act. The issue is you have to reject all of the down sides in order to reach the position of "benefit". An example wold be wind turbines. Is wind generated electricity worth more than the hundreds of thousands of soaring birds killed by them? The noise pollution? It's that kind of honest analysis that CAGW panic specifically fights against to preserve the "DO IT NOOOOOW!" hysteria.

Quite naturally what we do to deal with the problem will go in fits and starts, including wrong directions. We're human. We may find out the problem is not as severe as thought. Welcome news if/when it comes. Ozone hole, acid rain, and tobacco dangers presumably had different levels of proof supporting action at different times. Tobacco seems to have grown in concern, thus more limits. What is dangerous is when we go in Trumps "Chinese hoax" direction and ignore our own agencies' opinions.

 

[jmotivator]

Quite naturally what we do to deal with the problem will go in fits and starts, including wrong directions. We're human. We may find out the problem is not as severe as thought. Welcome news if/when it comes. Ozone hole, acid rain, and tobacco dangers presumably had different levels of proof supporting action at different times. Tobacco seems to have grown in concern, thus more limits. What is dangerous is when we go in Trumps "Chinese hoax" direction and ignore our own agencies' opinions.

For every valid cause for concern there are a million false alarms. I mean, hell, it's now believed that one of the contributors to global warming is the shrinking Ozone hole! :lamo