Climate Change, Part III

[scoobert]

there are more important things then alleged climate change/global warming.
my bow mounted head will not flush!!!!!
and just yesterday i got sprayed with winterizing agent!!!!!

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Some corrections:

1. I didn't reference Spencer as a solar scientist but as a climatologist. The links to the stories on the effects of solar radiation on climate refer to solar scientists. Two subjects covered, two separate sources.

I didn't find where you explicitly mentioned what type of scientist Spencer was, but you did say "...since there is a consensus among solar scientists (not climate scientists) that the sun's cycles are firmly linked to earth climate...," followed by your attachment to the statement by Spencer, implying that he was a solar scientist, not a climate scientist. In either case, you are mistaken (can't say WRONG anymore ) that sunspots are a primary determinant of global temperatures, or that a consensus of climate scientists agrees with that point of view. See post #61 for current scientific understanding.



It takes a pretty good imagination to see the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures.

2. You seem confused about where the troposphere is located. We live in the troposphere. It extends from the surface to around 25,000 feet. If it isn't warming, it's hardly rational to insist that the earth is warming. Because of your misunderstanding of what the troposphere is, the balance of your thoughts on this are irrelevant. If this is an indication of your understanding of basic science, I don't know what to say, other than you can't know much about climate science if you don't understand the terms.

My mistake. Thank you for correcting me.

3. The criticisms of Spencer's papers published in 1992 were substantive, as shown by the very data Spencer just posted in July of this year. You can see a spike in the temps. The AGW flak site quoted from deals with data up to 2006 - and in 2006 John Christy was fully prepared (as a good scientist) to acknowledge that as of 2006 a warming trend could be seen. However, with more data that trend is gone and you are left with the .17 of a degree of warming since 1980 indicated. Curious, but are you being intentionally dishonest in using quotes from 2006 to prove something about data available in 2013, or are you just honestly confused?

Again, see post #61.

4. Who is the 'bulk of scientists' you refer to? This corrected data has only become available in June of this year, when, and as noted, the AMSU-A satellite data was eliminated from the dataset based on 'spurious warming' measurements. By the way, it wasn't Exxon who removed this invalid data, it was NOAA. Did this 'bulk of scientists' react to this data in 90 days all falling in line, or are you just exaggerating?

5. Occam's razor is a useful paradigm when considering multiple possible explanations for why something is happening. However, when the something, in this case global warming, is shown not to be happening, you can keep Occam's razor in the drawer. It isn't needed.

You keep harping on and on about how global warming is not happening. You are simply wro...mistaken. Here is a temperature graph showing combined land AND sea temperatures. Note that that since 1998 (which many Deniers touts as the high-water point for global warming) there have been three years with higher temperatures, and three more with temperatures almost as high. Also note that from 1880 to 1910, and from 1940 to 1970 temperatures also dropped or at least plateaued. Furthermore, the reasons for these two plateau periods are now understood. (In part, in the case of post-1940, because industrial output and CO2 production dropped off sharply after WWII).




And scientists are now better understanding the reasons for this current plateau. (This is just one news report of many)

Pacific Ocean Cools, Flattening Global Warming | USA TODAY

…The flattening over the past 15 years of a rise in the world's average surface temperature springs from a natural cooling pattern in the eastern Pacific Ocean, climate scientists reported Wednesday…

"Our results strongly confirm the role that (man-made) emissions are having on the climate," says climate scientist Shang-Ping Xie, senior author on the Nature journal study. "At one point over the long term, the effect we are seeing in the Pacific will stop. I'm confident the bigger increases in warming will resume…"

"Our results show that Pacific cooling has indeed pulled down the average global surface increases seen from global warming," Xie says. Essentially, a persistent La Niña-like weather pattern across the tropical eastern Pacific, an area covering about 8.2% of the globe, has created a "cool spot," he says. That has balanced out temperature increases manifested elsewhere in continuing melting of the Arctic, rising sea levels and record summer heat waves across continents, he says…

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2.
Global surface temperatures since 1880. Lower chart depicts ElNino activity in the Pacific Ocean.(Photo: NASA)

MIT's Susan Solomon is more skeptical of the Pacific Ocean cooling as an explanation for the flattening, saying "a chicken vs. egg problem" dogs the finding. "Did the sea surface temperatures cool on their own, or were they forced to do so by, for example, changes in volcanic or pollution aerosols, or something else? This paper can't answer that question."

Xie acknowledges the criticism, saying some evidence suggests global warming has transferred a portion of that heat to the ocean depths, which may explain the cooling of Pacific waters at the surface…

This suggests that you have to look longer than a few years, or even a decade or two, to see the pattern. The fact that temperature increase is currently somewhat flat, albeit at record highs, should be little encouragement to any but the most blind.

Bottom line, the gist of your rebuttal is based on rote transfer of a definition of the troposphere from Skeptical Science which is incorrect, coupled with a selective ignoring of the data after an analysis in 2006, coupled with skipping over the point that prior data was polluted by spurious readings, now eliminated as of June of this year.

Pretty much par for the course for AGW promoters.

p.s. as a spread trader, I am a serious student of predictive models, as well as building them in healthcare for a living. If I had a model that performed as poorly as current climate change models have performed, I'd be broke.

Climate modeling is extremely complex. For many decades some of the world's most powerful computers, as well as legions of scientists from many different disciplines, have been used to create models. However, to say these models have performed poorly is to (intentionally?) misrepresent the facts.

How reliable are climate models? | SKEPTICAL SCIENCE

Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).



Figure 2: Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data (Hansen 2006).



Figure 4: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).



Figure 5: Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).





And do us a favor by not again denigrating Skeptical Science by use of an Ad Hominem attack. Skeptical Science compiles information. They carefully reference all their sources, which are internationally recognized scientific organizations. If you have a problem with the data, fine, show your countering data.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Well jack (ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor Evaluator, CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor, IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor), at least he's actually in a field of study that has some relevance to what he is writing about. Unlike John Cook who apparently does research in psychology. You have a rather disturbing trait of attacking the credentials of those you disagree with....

Your continuing ad hominem attacks on Jack are not nice. What relevance does citing his signature line have to do with his arguments. Please quit.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by jongleur
Delfin, you seem to misunderstand many things,
one of which is that Hydrogen is not a (primary)
fuel, it is at best a storage device.

Originally Posted by Delfin

You mean hydrogen doesn't burn? That would be news to these guys: Hydrogen Fuel

You should take a break, go to bed. Jongleur didn't say that hydrogen doesn't burn.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

It looks like the sun is going into a solar minimum which is associated with general global cooling, kiss goodbye to global warming for the time being. And if we look at the global temperatures over the last 10,000 years , they have only been heading one way, down!

Interglacial periods last on average 10-12,000 years, its been about that same time period since the last full on glacial period.

Temperature were headed down until the industrial and the release of millions of years of stored CO2. The natural cycles have been compromised.

Even the Stanford Solar Center attributes warming to AGW.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

You're wrong about Kenomac being wrong about wrong being wrong but I'm probably wrong.
Seriously, I hope we become extinct soon and just get it over with.

Lord, Im glad your not in charge of the world order,you talk like the guy that would push the wrong button..lol its strating to gety real bright in here I think I need some dark sunglasses

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

You Disagreers (see we can think up catchy labels, too) are arguing to the wrong bunch. We, like you, already enjoy a great lifestyle. How do you plan to get the billion plus in the developing world to forego our level of lifestyle?

What if they all want houses, and cars, and electricity and yachts and vacations and want it for their families, too?

Or is the argument going to be, "They've never had that stuff. They won't know what they are missing?"

If the plan is to just Al Gore them (Do as I say, not as I do) then good luck with that.

We're not debating the solution, we're trying to agree that there's a problem or not. But you've very usefully revealed a reason why so many have taken an anti-AGW stance: the problem seems so immense, and solutions so potentially draconian (in their imagination, or they've been told so), that AGW just hasta be wrong, right?

I would respectfully ask any with an anti-AGW opinion to please push any thought of the solutions away for the moment. We're not there yet. We're still sitting around the metaphorical table having a prolonged and futile argument about whether climate scientists are less trustworthy than oil-industry flacks.

Thing is - many of the current AGW-deniers in the world have already been forced back to a position of "ok AGW is happening but it's not really that bad, there's nothing we can do, sunspots, etc etc". So they are actually stepping onboard, a little, but are still clutching at straws (eg the evil Al Gore ) to keep us from doing more comprehensive analysis and starting to think about solutions.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Teknav

Ok guys...give it a rest and forget about climate change. Any mods around here to deep-six this thread? Whoever does it, I'll send you a home made gallon of coconut ice cream WITHOUT any husks! Kill this damn thread! Grazie!
Mauritz

This Lassie is very susceptible to icecream bribes.
Had it been chocolate icecream, not coconut on offer, this thread would have been closed earlier .

Guys, enough testosterone has been flung about here on the 'off-topic' forum to last a LONG LONG while. Please go back to the main forum and and devote your energy to discussing 'on-topic' cruising issues in a polite, cordial manner .