Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Methuselah]

As BOM was involved I expect the figures were fudged.

Thermometers place to close to people's barbies?

[knocker]

Cause and Effect,

 

by Scott Denning

 

Why are scientists so confident that a business as usual future based on fossil fuels will lead to major changes in the Earth’s climate?  Because we seek to understand climate in terms of cause and effect.

 

A very common misconception about climate change is that projections of future warming are based on extrapolation of recent warming trends. This misconception is fed by media reporting: both “fourth warmest January on record†and “global warming pause†narratives suggest that we’re waiting with bated breath to see what the climate will do, and whether emerging trends can be understood. Even well-intentioned science outreach often starts off with a graph showing rising temperatures as if this is the basis for our understanding and prediction.

 

- See more at: http://climatechangenationalforum.org/cause-and-effect-by-scott-denning/#sthash.q2Q66pS9.dpuf

Edited March 3, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-57#entry2941572

 

Scottish (Fake) Sceptic: A legend in his own lunchtime but no survey expert

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/scottish-fake-sceptic-legend-in-his-own.html

Edited March 3, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

The Climate Change Denial Machine: The Psychology of Denial -

 

See more at: http://jcmooreonline.com/2014/03/03/climate-change-denial-machine-the-psychology-of-denialism/#sthash.bVu1LGgN.dpuf

Edited March 4, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

To put it mildly (so to speak) this is quite comprehensive.

 

 

The deep freeze that continues to affect the U.S. has resulted in numerous daily temperature records, and some all-time cold temperature records. But in general, this Arctic outbreak, courtesy of a huge chunk of the polar vortex that the jet stream temporarily dislodged from the Arctic, is bringing the coldest temperatures in 20 to 30 years to many areas of the Midwest, Ohio Valley, Deep South, and the eastern seaboard.

 

Some of the most severe cold has affected the Midwest, from Minnesota to Illinois and east to Michigan. Chicago set a record for the 7th coldest noontime temperature since 1930, with a temperature of just -14°F at midday on Monday. But the city did not set any all-time cold records.

 

While the cold temperatures have been unusual and even deadly, climate data shows that intense cold such as this event is now occurring far less frequently in the continental U.S. than it used to. This is largely related to winter warming trends due to manmade global warming and natural climate variabiility.

 

Climate Central calculated the number of nights below a specific temperature threshold for dozens of U.S. cities based on the local climatology and current weather conditions. The calculations encompass the entire winter season, and show that overall there is a downward trend in the number of extreme cold nights like we’re currently experiencing – although there are variations in a few cities. This trend is consistent with climate studies showing that overall, winters across the contiguous U.S. have warmed by .61°F per decade since 1970, and every region has warmed at least somewhat over that time.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/extreme-cold-events-in-a-climate-context-16931

Edited March 4, 2014 by knocker

[jonboy]

To put it mildly (so to speak) this is quite comprehensive.

 

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/extreme-cold-events-in-a-climate-context-16931

 

Perhaps you could explain this bit?

courtesy of a huge chunk of the polar vortex that the jet stream temporarily dislodged from the Arctic

[knocker]

Perhaps you could explain this bit?

courtesy of a huge chunk of the polar vortex that the jet stream temporarily dislodged from the Arctic

 

Perhaps the article already does.

[VillagePlank]

Data only chosen from 1970. Another epic fail, and one for the bin.

[knocker]

Okay before cosigning this to the bin. How do posts qualify for this by the way as this seems to be the only one in either thread to satisfy the criteria which I find a tad surprising? But there you go. In passing I might point out both of you are in the wrong thread again.

 

For the first two months of the winter season, the contiguous U.S. average temperature was 30.6°F, 1.1°F below the 20^th century average, and the 33^rd coldest December-January on record. This was the coldest December-January since 2010/11.

Edited March 4, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Data only chosen from 1970. Another epic fail, and one for the bin.

 

But hang on, I thought the 'epic warming fail' many people have been shouting about recently was the vitally important data showing no warming since 2000 ???? 

[VillagePlank]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. This thread has repeatedly criticised 'skeptic' blogs/posters/comments for cherry picking data. As part of the cherry picking is using an arbitrary starting date. And 1970 is an arbitrary starting date. Given that I agree that skeptic attempts at dismissing actual data by picking some starting date or other to 'demonstrate' their case is just plain silly (being nice here) the same thing most certainly applies to the other side of the debate. I therefore stand by my comment that Knocker's link is an epic fail and should be summarily dismissed as junk science.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

I don't think that asking questions or disagreeing with articles should disqualify someone from posting in here. However, perhaps something a little more constructive than "epic fail" might help things!

But hang on, I thought the 'epic warming fail' many people have been shouting about recently was the vitally important data showing no warming since 2000 ????

Sparkicle isn't one of those who promote the "no warming since 1998" meme.

[VillagePlank]

Epic fail seems reasonable enough to me. It covers a multitude of sins, too.

In passing I might point out both of you are in the wrong thread again.

 

 

 

Yup. Time to start my own thread, I guess. I'm not welcome in the other one, either.

[knocker]

Epic fail seems reasonable enough to me. It covers a multitude of sins, too.

 

Yup. Time to start my own thread, I guess. I'm not welcome in the other one, either.

 

Your twisting my words. I assume deliberately. I didn't say or infer your not welcome. Merely pointing out the rules that, I may add, I didn't make.

Edited March 4, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Epic fail seems reasonable enough to me. It covers a multitude of sins, too.

I agree that it's cherry picked data. Climate Central tend to do this kind of thing a lot, not to the extent of WUWT and co, but enough so that I generally have little regard for their articles.

[knocker]

The way thngs are going in this area it's definately time for me to stop posting here. Bye.

[BornFromTheVoid]

The way thngs are going in this area it's definately time for me to stop posting here. Bye.

 

 

?

[knocker]

If the two threads are to encourage discourse and not animosity it seems to me to fail in one major respect. Scepticism by it's very definition is inherent in the scientific process so should slot quite easily into a single thread.

 

On the other hand replace sceptic with denier then it's another ballgame. And then I agree with Gavin Schmidt you cannot engage. So to all intents and purposes the other thread is a denier thread and should be so named.

Edited March 4, 2014 by knocker

[Polar Maritime]

Could not agree more Knock, but what's to stop you posting..?

Edited March 4, 2014 by Polar Maritime

[Gray-Wolf]

While the other place appears a good place to show the freak show that is denialism it really does not appear to be 'sceptical' of the human induced climate shift we are undergoing?

 

Maybe we do need a 'nutters' thread?

[Polar Maritime]

While the other place appears a good place to show the freak show that is denialism it really does not appear to be 'sceptical' of the human induced climate shift we are undergoing?

 

Maybe we do need a 'nutters' thread?

 

 'sceptical denialism' 

 

Don't go down the name calling route, it will just produce another rope for 'them' to swing off.

[knocker]

Could not agree more Knock, but what's to stop you posting..?

 

Nothing specific PM just me having a head.............banging................brick wall, moment.

[knocker]

It never rains but it pause

 

There has been a veritable deluge of new papers this month related to recent trends in surface temperature. There are analyses of the CMIP5 ensemble, new model runs, analyses of complementary observational data, attempts at reconciliation all the way to commentaries on how the topic has been covered in the media and on twitter. We will attempt to bring the highlights together here. As background, it is worth reading our previous discussions, along with pieces by Simon Donner and Tamino to help put in context what is being discussed here.

 

The papers and commentaries address multiple aspects of recent trends: the climate drivers over recent decades, the internal variability of the system, new analyses and model-observation comparisons – much as we suggested would be the case in any discussions of model-observations mismatches last year. We will take each in turn:

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/it-never-rains-but-it-pause/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.6mOJpbhl.dpuf

 

Edited March 4, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Our Father, Who Art..................................

 

When religion and ecology meet…