[nige1]

 MrAce, on 2015-June-25, 13:05, said:

http://cmip-pcmdi.ll...ailability.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ncdc.noaa...q/anomalies.php
http://data.giss.nas...temp/graphs_v3/
http://pubs.giss.nas...s/mi08910y.html
http://www.bloomberg...-like-it-s-1997
Check it out yourself, PassedOut did not only provide a fancy graphic but the sources behind it and how it is measured. But Idk why I am being involved in this discussion, it has been going on here in watercooler for so many years and I do believe both parties will defend their position to death. What purpose does a topic serve when it is so obvious that no one will agree with other party. Why not call it "let's agree to disagree" and get over with this pissing contest of graphics? You can easily disregard my suggestion if you are being paid for this of course or if you have no other interest in BBF, such as Bridge.

 hrothgar, on 2015-June-27, 09:46, said:

This feels like the point in time when Daniel tries to claim that he's not troll. He's a misunderstood centrist, trying to bring balance to this discussion.
Let me head this off at the pass:
1. You are trolling a bridge forum, posting unwanted crap about climate change. You might like to pretend that you are the voice of reason. In fact you're an annoying nobody who seems so desperate for human contact that you'd rather have people call you an asshole than than go through your life being ignored.
2. The only reason that this thread exists is that a small number of trolls continue to post a bunch of crap and some of us feel obliged to point out that they are full of *****. Without the efforts of you and Al to keep this thread alive, it would have died years ago.
3. You might want to note that your only ally on this thread spend 5 years trolling us about the "truth" behind the 911 bombings before he got bored and decided to start posting on climate change.
4. The only purpose that you serve on this forum is to make other people unhappy. Some life that you live...

Some BBF contributors might have firm beliefs, unshakable by evidence or argument but there are still a few of us, who admit our ignorance, enjoy friendly discussion, and welcome enlightenment. Climate change is of vital concern to us all and new evidence continuously emerges. Neither side of the debate has a monopoly on logic. Most of the little I know about climate-change, I learnt by reading this forum. I'm not yet persuaded by Daniel1960 and AluCard but I'm grateful to them and to those like y66 and PassedOut who stick to evidence and argument.

Ad hominem attacks sidetrack discussion, without adding value.

[Al_U_Card]

The more you know, the better able you are to decide for yourself and not rely on bombastic, arrogant bullies no matter what point of view they represent.

Figuring out the angles and the agendas may take a while but the facts (such as they are and as they develop) speak volumes and louder than any rant or threat.

In the run-up to the latest climate junket (Paris CoP 2015) the adepts are trying to drum up concern so that allegiances will be pledged to the IPCC's point of view that only we can prevent climate change...

A new paper on sea-level rise by Grinsted et al is currently doing the rounds, with horror stories about what the future holds in store being touted to newspapers across Europe. The authors have provided a list of the "probable" levels of sea-level rise in major European capitals, a step that editors no doubt find extremely helpful.

The University of Delft, home to some of the paper's authors, has a blog post on the findings. It's typical of the genre, reporting a rise of 0.83m for The Hague and generally trying to drum up a bit of excitement. The paper itself is entitled `Sea level rise projections for northern Europe under RCP8.5', so it's fairly clear that it's exploring outlier scenarios. As if to emphasise the point, there's this quote from Grinsted himself:

Our probability distribution also takes some of the more pessimistic opinions regarding the situation in Antarctica into account.’

But you could come away with a different impression: RCP8.5 touted is in the blog post as:

"a business-as-usual scenario – the situation where globally no restrictive measures are imposed to structurally limit CO2 emissions".

without any mention of RCP8.5's business-as-unusual shift from gas to coal, the surge in population way above official projections and the fictional carbon-cycle feedbacks.

And of course, by the time the newspapers get hold of the story, you are definitely going to come away with a different impression. The paper was picked up this weekend in the Irish editions of the Sunday Times, where the findings were embellished with a headline about a "monster climate event". The paper also wheeled out one of the usual suspects to comment on it: Professor John Sweeney, who opines that although Grinsted at al report 0.69m by 2100 for Dublin, there is a 5% chance of 1.63m. Not wanting to be outdone, Grinsted et al up the bidding to a 1% chance of 2.29m, rounding off with a claim that they can get up to 4.89m by adding in a storm surge.

I wonder if Professor Sweeney can up the bidding still further?

link

[Daniel1960]

 nige1, on 2015-June-28, 13:55, said:

Some BBF contributors might have firm beliefs, unshakable by evidence or argument but there are still a few of us, who admit our ignorance, enjoy friendly discussion, and welcome enlightenment. Climate change is of vital concern to us all and new evidence continuously emerges. Neither side of the debate has a monopoly on logic. Most of the little I know about climate-change, I learnt by reading this forum. I'm not yet persuaded by Daniel1960 and AluCard but I'm grateful to them and to those like y66 and PassedOut who stick to evidence and argument.

Ad hominem attacks sidetrack discussion, without adding value.

Wise decision. You should not accept my evidence or logic or y66 or anyone else solely. As you mentioned, neither has the monopoly, and there is reams of evidence in support of multiple positions. This is a consequence if the rather large uncertainty in climate science understanding. We need to stay abreast of the most recent developments, in order to proceed in the most prudent path available.

Discussion should never be silenced, no matter how unpalatable to ones own beliefs

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-June-29, 10:31, said:

Wise decision. You should not accept my evidence or logic or y66 or anyone else solely. As you mentioned, neither has the monopoly, and there is reams of evidence in support of multiple positions. This is a consequence if the rather large uncertainty in climate science understanding. We need to stay abreast of the most recent developments, in order to proceed in the most prudent path available.

Discussion should never be silenced, no matter how unpalatable to ones own beliefs

You don't think that Nigel cares about global warming do you?

Nigel posts to invite abuse. He then goes off whining to the admins to complain about how unfair the world is and that people don't like him.
Some days, when he's really lucky, I get banned and he gets to pretend that he matters.

Its ironic to note that these complaints about ad hominem attacks are an attempt to stifle conversation that Nigel doesn't approve of

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2015-June-29, 11:04, said:

You don't think that Nigel cares about global warming do you? Nigel posts to invite abuse. He then goes off whining to the admins to complain about how unfair the world is and that people don't like him. Some days, when he's really lucky, I get banned and he gets to pretend that he matters.Its ironic to note that these complaints about ad hominem attacks are an attempt to stifle conversation that Nigel doesn't approve of.

I welcome debate about Climate Change, an interesting topic, important to future generations.

hrothgar's profile said:

Remember the good old days, when *****tards like Al_U_Card and Lukewarm were isolated on AOL?

Although hrothgar's agenda disgusts me, I haven't yet complained to moderators about the abuse he directs at me.

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of predictions...errr prevarications...errr model projections concerning sea-ice coverage, how does that stack up?

"Using historical runs from as many as 25 CMIP5 climate models, Mahlstein et al. compared their hind-casted sea-ice trends for the area around Antarctica against observational data for the period 1980 to 2001, which are archived by the Met Office Hadley Centre (Rayner et al., 2003) and the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (Comiso, 1999, updated 2012). And what did they learn from this endeavor?

Quoting the three researchers, “the representations of Antarctic sea ice in CMIP5 models have not improved compared to CMIP3,” in that “the spread in sea ice area is not reduced compared to the previous models.” Most important of all, however, was their finding that whereas most CMIP5 climate models “simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice over the recent past,” real-world data demonstrate that the “average Antarctic sea ice area is not retreating but has slowly increased since satellite measurements began in 1979.” And it is difficult for a climate model to be more wrong than when it hind-casts just the opposite of what has been observed to be happening over the past three and a half decades in the real world, which is what most of the CMIP5 models apparently do."

It is astonishing but not surprising that the only leg the alarmists have to stand on is gangrenous and in need of serious attention

[hotShot]

At this point, the science people are discussing if the "hiatus" is an artifact caused by the low density of measurement stations it the arctic area.
Some argue that the process to combine the stations results worldwide, puts to little weight on the arctic stations, so that the "gross" temperature rise there, is an underrepresentation.
Putting a little more weight on them and the pause in climate change is gone from the trend.

[Zelandakh]

 hotShot, on 2015-July-02, 05:15, said:

Putting a little more weight on them and the pause in climate change is gone from the trend.

And what happens when the models are re-tuned to the lower gradient of this trend line? Do you have any data using the adjusted weights going back across the entire historic record and some information on how this is affected? Your post tends to suggest that a little data manipulation here means we can ignore the issue and forget about it anywhere else, which is precisely the issue that many skeptical climate scientists have raised in the last years. Science usually works by matching the model to the observed data rather than adjusting the observed data to match the desired result and then making a model around that!

[Daniel1960]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-July-02, 07:02, said:

And what happens when the models are re-tuned to the lower gradient of this trend line? Do you have any data using the adjusted weights going back across the entire historic record and some information on how this is affected? Your post tends to suggest that a little data manipulation here means we can ignore the issue and forget about it anywhere else, which is precisely the issue that many skeptical climate scientists have raised in the last years. Science usually works by matching the model to the observed data rather than adjusting the observed data to match the desired result and then making a model around that!

The data shows that the Arctic did not experience much of a hiatus during the first decade of the 21st century, but has undergone a hiatus during the second. In fact, much of Greenland (and the North Atlantic) has been in a short-term cooling trend.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

http://realclimatesc...n.-07-07.42.gif

http://dailycaller.c...umulatedsmb.png

http://www.climate4y...59Nand30-0W.gif

[Al_U_Card]

From Dr. Bill Gray's editorial in the Coloradoan, a succinct appreciation of why general circulation climate models are not to be "believed" as far as their "projections" are concerned...

The failure of the climate models are related to their inability to explicitly resolve the globe’s many individual deep cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud elements. Due to faulty assumptions these cloud models produce unrealistic upper tropospheric temperature and moisture rises as CO2 amounts increase. These increases in moisture block too much radiation loss to space and cause unrealistic warming. By contrast, observations show that increases in global deep Cb clouds from CO2 gas increases brings about an opposite (drying) response. Observed upper tropospheric drying from Cb clouds acts to enhance radiation flux to space and bring about temperature decreases.

"Adjusting" the observations to fit the theory is anti-science, but a necessary bodge to keep the threat alive.

[PassedOut]

If you look hard enough, you can find the opinions of outliers on any subject, and that certainly includes global warming: Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming

Quote

Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work’s shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray’s pronouncements on climate change and its causes.

Gray’s paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton’s State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth." It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern.

Of course it is not that climate scientists haven't examined Gray's arguments. On the contrary, his arguments are thoroughly understood and almost universally rejected. Anyone interested can easily read up on why that is.

[Daniel1960]

 PassedOut, on 2015-July-05, 14:56, said:

If you look hard enough, you can find the opinions of outliers on any subject, and that certainly includes global warming: Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming


Of course it is not that climate scientists haven't examined Gray's arguments. On the contrary, his arguments are thoroughly understood and almost universally rejected. Anyone interested can easily read up on why that is.

Of course those on opposite ends of the argument tend to reject universally the opinions of the others:

http://tropical.atmo...ns/gray2012.pdf

http://www.realclima...04/gray-on-agw/

Perhaps we should glean for ourselves the truth. I do find it rather humorous that scientists from both extremes can so vehemently denounce the views of their opponents.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2015-July-05, 14:56, said:

If you look hard enough, you can find the opinions of outliers on any subject, and that certainly includes global warming: Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming


Of course it is not that climate scientists haven't examined Gray's arguments. On the contrary, his arguments are thoroughly understood and almost universally rejected. Anyone interested can easily read up on why that is.

Since that Realclimate article dates from 2006 (!) has Dr. Gray been caught in a time-warp? Perhaps his use of actual data and observations before and since then confounds the modelers? Other than modeled parameters being held up as "science" and scientific reasoning, perhaps we need to eliminate those pesky data like the MWP and other factual information and just believe in the power of ..... just what exactly?

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2015-July-06, 04:49, said:

Since that Realclimate article dates from 2006 (!) has Dr. Gray been caught in a time-warp? Perhaps his use of actual data and observations before and since then confounds the modelers? Other than modeled parameters being held up as "science" and scientific reasoning, perhaps we need to eliminate those pesky data like the MWP and other factual information and just believe in the power of ..... just what exactly?

Might want to check Dr Gray's birth date, as well as the amount of research and publication that he's done in the last decade.
(Hint: He is well into his 80's)

For what its worth, this latest piece of "research" which has impressed you so much was "published" in the op-ed section of a local town newspaper.

[MrAce]

 hrothgar, on 2015-July-06, 06:06, said:

For what its worth, this latest piece of "research" which has impressed you so much was "published" in the op-ed section of a local town newspaper.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2015-July-06, 06:06, said:

Might want to check Dr Gray's birth date, as well as the amount of research and publication that he's done in the last decade.
(Hint: He is well into his 80's)

For what its worth, this latest piece of "research" which has impressed you so much was "published" in the op-ed section of a local town newspaper.

Since when do we denigrate the wisdom of those who have advanced in their years? It should be noted that Dr. Gray is still a professor emeritus in the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University. His 2015 hurricane forecasts are still referenced by national weather services.

The research referenced appeared at the "7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) to be held in Chicago, IL during May 21-23, 2012." Hardly last decade or an op-ed newspaper section.

By comparison, the post calling him an outlier was dated 2006, and appeared in a webblog.

If one where to compare to two theories, they main difference lies in how clouds and water vapor are treated. The GCMs assume constant constant relative humidity in a warming world and consequently a large warming attributable to water vapor. Cloud formation and precipitation effects are ignored - partly beacuse they are not well defined. Removing these assumptions (as Gray does), lowers the predicted warming to under one degree.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-July-07, 07:17, said:

Since when do we denigrate the wisdom of those who have advanced in their years? It should be noted that Dr. Gray is still a professor emeritus in the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University. His 2015 hurricane forecasts are still referenced by national weather services.

The research referenced appeared at the "7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) to be held in Chicago, IL during May 21-23, 2012." Hardly last decade or an op-ed newspaper section.

The "7th International Conference on Climate Change" is sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
(It's what they do in the spare time when they aren't claiming that there is no linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer)

Honestly, an Op-Ed in a local newspaper has a hell of a lot more credibility.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-July-07, 07:17, said:

Since when do we denigrate the wisdom of those who have advanced in their years? It should be noted that Dr. Gray is still a professor emeritus in the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University. His 2015 hurricane forecasts are still referenced by national weather services.

The research referenced appeared at the "7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) to be held in Chicago, IL during May 21-23, 2012." Hardly last decade or an op-ed newspaper section.

The "7th International Conference on Climate Change" is sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
(It's what they do in the spare time when they aren't claiming that there is no linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer)

Honestly, an Op-Ed in a local newspaper has a hell of a lot more credibility.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2015-July-07, 08:10, said:

The "7th International Conference on Climate Change" is sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
(It's what they do in the spare time when they aren't claiming that there is no linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer)

Honestly, an Op-Ed in a local newspaper has a hell of a lot more credibility.

Funny how those promoting the AGW theory question the credibility of anyone publishing contrary to their claims, and those attacking AGW theory question the credibilty of those publishing supporting documentation. Simply applying the label of "denier" or "alarmist" is enough to discredit their work.

According to the "alarmists," any scientist who does not support their viewpoint, is not "credible." Similarly, the "deniers" claim that any scientist promoting AGW theory is not "credible." Hence, both extremes claim victory, because the opposing scientists do not count in their tabulations.

Unfortunately, many in the the scientific community have fallen victim to this politicization of climate science. While science has always had its ostracized victims (Galileo, Pasteur, Wegener, Marshall), the ridicule was largely confined to reigning scientists within the field. Today this is not confined to scientists, but the larger community, especially politicians. Hence, the political climate change debate differs greatly from the scientific debate.

Fortunately, there are still those, who refuse to be confined to either camp. They still hold true to science, and allow the individual research to stand on its own merits, instead of the reputation of the researcher.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-July-07, 09:14, said:

Funny how those promoting the AGW theory question the credibility of anyone publishing contrary to their claims, and those attacking AGW theory question the credibilty of those publishing supporting documentation. Simply applying the label of "denier" or "alarmist" is enough to discredit their work.

According to the "alarmists," any scientist who does not support their viewpoint, is not "credible." Similarly, the "deniers" claim that any scientist promoting AGW theory is not "credible." Hence, both extremes claim victory, because the opposing scientists do not count in their tabulations.

Unfortunately, many in the the scientific community have fallen victim to this politicization of climate science. While science has always had its ostracized victims (Galileo, Pasteur, Wegener, Marshall), the ridicule was largely confined to reigning scientists within the field. Today this is not confined to scientists, but the larger community, especially politicians. Hence, the political climate change debate differs greatly from the scientific debate.

Fortunately, there are still those, who refuse to be confined to either camp. They still hold true to science, and allow the individual research to stand on its own merits, instead of the reputation of the researcher.

What was it I said last week. Oh yes:

Quote

This feels like the point in time when Daniel tries to claim that he's not troll. He's a misunderstood centrist, trying to bring balance to this discussion.

You don't get to label the "people you agree with" as "holding true to science" and label the other side as politicized alarmists.

I understand why it is an effective rhetorical tactic to pretend that your a centrist. Who knows, you might even believe this.

At the end of the day, you're another denialist troll who couldn't hack it on Real Climate site.
(Wish I knew what they did to drive you off the site. I'd pay good money to anyone who could show me how to do the same)