Climate sensitivity

There is no such science, except in your denier cult myths. I notice you can never seem to be able to post this mythical contrarian "science" that you lie about.

 

Blah blah denier cult blah blah.

 

And you still can't back up your denier cult drivel with any actual scientific evidence, as these empty posts just further demonstrate.

 

Sorry you ignore any science that is politically inconvenient.

 

How does that expression go?
Something about a pot and a kettle...?

 

Nope, I read all the science but when it turns into advocacy, like you display, then it just stinks and is not science for science sake. Ignoring the science that does not fit the political advocacy is stupid.

 

You read ALL the science?!

That seems about as credible as everything else you've said on this forum.

 

The difference between you and I is that you dismiss any science that does not fit the current political advocacy meme.

 

Actually, I believe the opposite is true given that the sources I've posted are held by the majority of specialists in this field - whereas you dismiss the consensus to cling to conservative talking points.

Oh, and that's just one of MANY differences between us.

 

In other words, you ignore any study that is not part of the political consensus. Exactly what I have been saying.

 

If 97 doctors tell you that you need surgery, and 3 tell you that you have nothing to worry about... What do you believe is the most logical course of action?

If you chose to listen to the vast majority of experts, would it necessarily be because of your "politics"?

Is there any common sense in you at all, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?

 

Still using the bogus 97 number from the cartoonist's website eh?

 

Ad hominem much?

The question (that you are dodging) remains:
Do you listen to the medical opinions of the majority of doctors, or hope the slim minority are right?

 

What facts?

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong!!!!!

 

That depends, I would ask to see the evidence from the 97 and then question the the three for the reason why they object. it really isn't that difficult. For me, I don't wnat any unneeded medical work done, so my choice is to be certain myself.

See you blantantly believe someone who tells you something instead of logically looking at it. and logically, the fact is there is no evidence that CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. Instead the evidence states the complete opposite. Livefree even posted the warm period. How did it get warm, guess what, no evidence on why, then it got cold again, and the same thing repeated almost every 30 years. And the consensus that the last fifteen years has remained less warm than 98% of the models tells me that CO2 is not the influence. So what say you? What facts do you personally have that prove to you that CO2 is the culprit? See I have my proof, and most all of the graphs support me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

How about the fact that we produce more pollutants per capita as we become more reliant on technology?

How about the fact that we destroy more of the world's natural carbon sinks without replacing them?

How about the fact that we see an increase in smog (and it's detrimental health effects) over time?

How about the fact that producing more pollutants while reducing the number of carbon sinks has no possible survivable ending?

The fact that you disagree has no bearing on the validity of the post you replied to, particularly as you were unable to provide any counter argument.

 

So what does that have to do with temperatures? So I agree we have smog. You can actually see it. Yep Me too. Still doesn't prove anything about temperature cycles. None, nada, zero, zip!!!!!

Dude,there are about fifteen threads on this message site. There is so much contradictive data to support my position, that you refuse to read it. So reposting things for an umpteenth time seems really silly. how about you agree to have a your scientist debate my scientists and let's see what happens? Are you good with that, or does that undermine something for you like Micheal Mann seems to think?

 

He is not a climate scientist but a "communications fellow" and he is running a purely advocacy website.

Non sequitur much?

 

Here is a list of the discussion points from my side.

You just can't stop yourself. LOL. Here...you want me to read all your diatribe read this:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/...ce/#more-16251


Finally, Some Real Climate Science
Tony Thomas 18-3-2014

The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned.

The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism.

The same APS put out a formal statement in 2007 adding its voice to the alarmist hue and cry. That statement caused resignations of some of its top physicists (including 1973 Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara).[1] The APS was forced by 2010 to add some humiliating clarifications but retained the original statement that the evidence for global warming was ‘incontrovertible’.[2]

By its statutes, the APS must review such policy statements each half-decade and that scheduled review is now under way, overseen by the APS President Malcolm Beasley.

The review, run by the society’s Panel on Public Affairs, includes four powerful shocks for the alarmist science establishment.[3]


First, a sub-committee has looked at the recent 5th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and formulated scores of critical questions about the weak links in the IPCC’s methods and findings. In effect, it’s a non-cosy audit of the IPCC’s claims on which the global campaign against CO2 is based.

Second, the sub-committee, after ‘consulting broadly’, appointed a panel to workshop the questions and then provide input to the new official statement on climate. The appointed panel of six, amazingly, includes three eminent sceptic scientists: Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Judith Curry. The other three members comprise long-time IPCC stalwart Ben Santer (who, in 1996, drafted, in suspicious circumstances, the original IPCC mantra about a “discernible” influence of manmade CO2 on climate), an IPCC lead author and modeler William Collins, and atmospheric physicist Isaac Held.

Third, the sub-committee is ensuring the entire process is publicly transparent — not just the drafts and documents, but the workshop discussions, which have been taped, transcribed and officially published, in a giant record running to 500+ pages.[4]

Fourth, the APS will publish its draft statement to its membership, inviting comments and feedback.

What the outcome will be, ie what the revised APS statement will say, we will eventually discover. It seems a good bet that the APS will break ranks with the world’s collection of peak science bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, and tell the public, softly or boldly, that IPCC science is not all it’s cracked up to be.

The APS audit of the IPCC makes a contrast with the Australian Science Academy’s (AAS) equivalent efforts. In 2010 the AAS put out a booklet, mainly for schools, ”The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers”, drafted behind closed doors. The drafters and overseers totalled 16 people, and the original lone sceptic, Garth Paltridge, was forced out by the machinations of then-President Kurt Lambeck.[5] The Academy is currently revising the booklet, without any skeptic input at all. Of the 16 drafters and overseers, at least nine have been IPCC contributors and others have been petition-signing climate-policy lobbyists, hardly appropriate to do any arm’s length audit of the IPCC version of the science. Once again, the process is without any public transparency or consulting with the broad membership.

The American Physical Society’s audit questions are pretty trenchant.[6] Just to recite some of them points in the can of worms soon to be authoritatively exposed. Here’s a selection:

The temperature stasis

While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …

To what would you attribute the stasis?

If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?

What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?

What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the statis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?

Some have suggested that the ‘missing heat’ is going into the deep ocean…

Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?

Why would the heat sequestration have ‘turned on’ at the turn of this century?

What could make it ‘turn off’ and when might that occur?

Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?

IPCC suggests that the stasis can be attributed in part to ‘internal variability’. Yet climate models imply that a 15-year stasis is very rare and models cannot reproduce the observed Global Mean Surface Temperature even with the observed radiative forcing.

What is the definition of ‘internal variability’? Is it poorly defined initial conditions in the models or an intrinsically chaotic nature of the climate system? If the latter, what features of the climate system ARE predictable?

How would the models underestimate of internal variability impact detection and attribution?

How long must the statis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models? If that occurs, would the fix entail: A retuning of model parameters? A modification of ocean conditions? A re-examination of fundamental assumptions?

General Understanding

Confidence

What do you consider to be the greatest advances in our understanding of the physical basis of climate change since AR4 in 2007?
What do you consider to be the most important gaps in current understanding?
How are the IPCC confidence levels determined?
What has caused the 5% increase in IPCC confidence from 2007 to 2013?

Climate Sensitivity

[This relates to the size of feedbacks to the agreed and mild CO2-induced warming. If feedbacks are powerful and positive, the alarmist case is strong. If feedbacks are weak or negative, there is no basis for any climate scare or for trillions of dollars to be spent on curbing CO2 emissions].

A factor-of-three uncertainty in the global surface temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 as expressed by equilibrium climate sensitivity, has persisted through the last three decades of research despite the significant intellectual effort that has been devoted to climate science.

What gives rise to the large uncertainties in this fundamental parameter of the climate system?

How is the IPCC’s expression of increasing confidence in the detection/attribution/projection of anthropogenic influences consistent with this persistent uncertainty?

Wouldn’t detection of an anthropogenic signal necessarily improve estimates of the response to anthropogenic perturbations?

Models and Projections

The APS notes that the IPCC draws on results and averages from large numbers of models, and comments, “In particular, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that some member of the ensemble [of models] gets it right at any given time. Rather, as in other fields of science, it is important to know how well the ‘best’ single model does at all times.”

Were inclusion/exclusion decisions made prior to examining the results? How do those choices impact the uncertainties?

Which metrics were used to assess the [claimed] improvements in simulations between AR4 and AR5 [2007 and 2013 reports]?

How well do the individual models do under those metrics? How good are the best models in individually reproducing the relevant climate observations to a precision commensurate with the anthropogenic perturbations?

The rest of the story is available at the link above...there are more questions and all of them are going to be just as tough to answer as the one's above. It is good to see that an organization like the APS is stepping down off the bandwagon and is going to ask some serious questions that won't be easily answered by a pseudoscientific outfit like the IPCC.

 

So you don't disagree that we are changing the composition of our atmosphere, but refuse to believe this change has any impact on temperature cycles?

 

Too bad you're so clueless. "Real Climate Science" is debated and settled in the scientific papers, written by real, professional climate scientists, that can get published in reputable peer reviewed science journals, NOT in articles by unknown, un-degreed, un-educated rightwingnutjobs on a denier cult blog.

 

Once again, you illustrate that you can't disagree with the actual information presented by focusing your attention on the source... also known as an ad hominem.

As for your implication that I've used a 'non sequitur', are you sure you even know what this means?

 

I never wrote that. I wrote I can see smog in the air, it is not in the atmosphere, one can ride in a Jet and rise above the smog, so no it is not in the atmosphere and again, there is no evidence to support it is.

 

Wow. I'm perpetually amazed by the level of ignorance expressed by denier posts...

Are you aware that the atmosphere is the air?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.html

 

So smog in LA is the atmosphere eh?