Earth's Climate or Why you should laugh at the Warmers

[CrusaderFrank]

Fantastic NOVA special on World Weather.

Yes, it's real science and absolutely fascinating

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I watched/listened to the first hour while doing an art project and you have to marvel at the incredible intricacy and balance between the Sun, atmosphere, oceans and rocks. In some respects, Antarctic drives the climate by providing steady dependable cold water to the north.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Earths rotation and water are what control earth climate with a little heat from that glowing thingy up there...

Happy New year!

 

[ScienceRocks]

90% of earth history has been warmer then today. The thing is and this is the bitch is the reality that humans developed in a ice age! Could we function in a climate like we had 30 million years ago?

 

[Billy_Bob]

90% of earth history has been warmer then today. The thing is and this is the bitch is the reality that humans developed in a ice age! Could we function in a climate like we had 30 million years ago?

You dont have a clue, do you...

 

[Searcher44]

Fantastic NOVA special on World Weather.

Yes, it's real science and absolutely fascinating

Looks like a great documentary. I only got about 20 min. into it then distracted by the fire.
I haven't got to the part I guess that explains why I should laugh at the "warmers."
I'm not exactly a "warmer".... yet. I'm a natural sceptic about everything. As I've said many times in these forums one thing I can't buy into is a "conspiracy of lies by climate scientists." I have a special and robust skepticism of just about every conspiracy theory I've come across. I've looked into most of the big ones with the thoroughness the world changing events that inspired them deserve. For example I probably read at least twenty of the JFK books and watched countless "documentaries" on that assassination and those from the 9/11 truthers and listened to many lectures on both. I've seen science make many mistakes in my lifetime and in history prior of course. So I am open to the possibility that the models are just wrong, that the Earth's biosphere is more resilient than those scientists and I think it is. But we humans have been treating that biosphere more like a toilet than our living room. The amount of poisons we've pumped into the Earth's hydrological cycle, our rivers and lakes and oceans, and the amount of gases we pump into the atmosphere by our industrial, agricultural, transportation systems etc. these to me are a little frightening. Of course we're not going to destroy the Earth but I'm just not that sure the delicately intertwined ecosystems that make up that part of the biosphere we depend on for life is as robust and impervious to ruin as the "deniers" seem confident it is.

And don't forget this great documentary you've brought to our attention describes the awesome technology that has almost put the Earth under a microscope for us. Damn, they can map the sea floor 2 miles down to within one-quarter of an inch! It's really incredible the amount of data these satellite systems and other tech give these scientists. So like I say don't forget that these data and the models they describe are very akin to the models they use to arrive at their GW projections. I haven't figured out why you are so impressed by one aspect of the science and yet so dismissive of the other. Like I said though I haven't committed to one side or the other, but so far the sciences displayed in this doc are impressing the hell out of me and tend to give more weight to believing the conclusions all this tech has led to rather than making me more skeptical. Anyway thanks again for putting it out there for us, I've recorded it and will watch it at least twice and probably more.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thank you, Frank, a wonderful documentary. Now, why the title? The documentary made exactly the opposite point. If you go to the last 7 minutes this points out man's impact of the systems it has previously explained.

 

[SSDD]

90% of earth history has been warmer then today. The thing is and this is the bitch is the reality that humans developed in a ice age! Could we function in a climate like we had 30 million years ago?

We could not only function....we could thrive.....we know that life has thrived and flourished during the warm periods....what makes you think that the most adaptable creature that ever walked the face of this planet would not flourish to heights undreamed of in a warmer climate?

 

[SSDD]

Thank you, Frank, a wonderful documentary. Now, why the title? The documentary made exactly the opposite point. If you go to the last 7 minutes this points out man's impact of the systems it has previously explained.

Not explained rocks....fabricated. We don't know enough about the climate and what drives it to really explain anything....hell, they have 40...50.. or more explanations for the lack of warming over the past 2 decades? If you can't explain why it stopped warming, you are an idiot if you believe you can explain why it started in the first place.

 

[Crick]

40 or 50 explanations? Why don't you find us 10?

 

[SSDD]

40 or 50 explanations? Why don't you find us 10?

OK...Unlike you, I can actually provide material to support my claims... By the way...my bad...the actual number is now up to 63....

Each one is listed there with a link to the original article...


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Updated list of 63 excuses for the 18-26 year 'pause' in global warming

Here they are, follow the links if you like....deny if your religion demands...someone may be interested in seeing them all in one place.


1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming

3) Chinese coal use

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What ‘pause’?

6) Volcanic aerosols

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

11) Pine aerosols

12) It's "not so unusual" and "no more than natural variability"

13) "Scientists looking at the wrong 'lousy' data" http://

14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation

17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) "Global brightening" has stopped

19) "Ahistorical media"

20) "It's the hottest decade ever" Decadal averages used to hide the 'pause'

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall "roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results"

23) "Not scientifically relevant"

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations

30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific

31) "Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason"

32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles

35) Scientists forgot "to look at our models and observations and ask questions"

36) The models really do explain the "pause"
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?

38) Trenberth's "missing heat" is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry's take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) "Slowdown" due to "a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum"

40) The "pause" is "probably just barely statistically significant" with 95% confidence:
The "slowdown" is "probably just barely statistically significant" and not "meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change"

41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The "recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate" because "anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate."
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they "surprisingly warm" the climate]

42) Trenberth's 'missing heat' really is missing and is not "supported by the data itself" in the "real ocean":

"it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some...layer of the ocean ... is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic." [Josh Willis]

43) Ocean Variability:

"After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the "pause"] is ocean variability. That's actually quite impressive progress."

44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:

" I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do."-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says "knows the data better than I do," says in the very same NYT article that "it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some...layer of the ocean ... is robustly supported by the data itself" - Josh Willis

45) We don't have a theory that fits all of the data:

"Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the 'pause'] that fits all of the data" [Andrew Dessler]

46) We don't have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the "pause" is due to such natural cycles:

"If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle." [Andrew Dessler]

47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both

"this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future." [Andrew Dessler]

48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:

It's the Atlantic, not Pacific, and "the hiatus in the warming...should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke" [John Michael Wallace]

49) The other papers with excuses for the "pause" are not "science done right":

" If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system." [Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway:
"The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up...How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?"

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]

52) 'Unusual climate anomaly' of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend

53) Competition" with two natural ocean oscillations

54) 'Global quasi-stationary waves' from natural ocean oscillations

55) Reduced warming in North Atlantic subpolar gyre

56) Satellites underestimate cooling from volcanic aerosols

57) Increase in mid- and upper level clouds

58) Colder eastern Pacific and reduced heat loss in other oceans

59) A "zoo of short-term trends"

60) IPCC Synthesis Report excuses for the "pause": volcanoes, solar activity, possible redistribution of heat:

61) Climate Policies?!
62) "Global warming causes no global warming"

63) Global warming will speed up after a "pause" due to "change of fundamental understanding about how greenhouse warming comes about"

 

[Crick]

You're pathetic. Would you like to see some cartoons? Jokes? Girls in bikinis?

 

[Crick]

The current record el Nino shows that the ocean did indeed, consume more thermal energy than usual. And Karl et al 2015 shows that no pause ever happened. I'm happy with those. And the day I take Climate Depot's interpretation of what a given paper says, is the day I turn in my "Adult Human Being With Normal Intellect" membership card.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Satellites show that the O2 created by the Amazon, stays in the Amazon

 

[Crick]

Like this?

This map seems to show high CO2 levels just where you'd expect them. Google says this graphic is from Judith Curry's blog and give this link: http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/16/climateenergy-policy-and-the-gop-congress/ but I do not find the graph or any related discussion there. Google or Judy has hosed something.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Like this?

This map seems to show high CO2 levels just where you'd expect them. Google says this graphic is from Judith Curry's blog and give this link: Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress but I do not find the graph or any related discussion there. Google or Judy has hosed something.

Well where did you get that map from?

 

[Crick]

Google, which said it came from Judith Curry's blog. When I opened the link, it was her blog, but the map was not there and there was no mention of the topic. I believe I already stated all this in my last post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, mea culpa. Should have seen that coming. The last 5 minutes they crap all over the previous 1:45 with the "Scientists say that saying GHG's are changing the planet" BS.

Oh well, enjoy it anyway

 

[il Tupe]

Thanks so much Frank. I'm trying very hard to hate the climate deniers. I do hate science and think people should decide everything on their gut reactions. People like you get it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's a CPB production so, of course they had to ruin the 2 hours by adding in the unfounded global climate change crap