Help support TMP


"Small volcanic eruptions explain warming hiatus" Topic


43 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

Coverbinding at Staples

How does coverbinding work?


1,209 hits since 13 Jan 2015
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Terrement13 Jan 2015 12:57 p.m. PST

link

The "warming hiatus" that has occurred over the last 15 years has been caused in part by small volcanic eruptions.

Scientists have long known that volcanoes cool the atmosphere because of the sulfur dioxide that is expelled during eruptions. Droplets of sulfuric acid that form when the gas combines with oxygen in the upper atmosphere can persist for many months, reflecting sunlight away from Earth and lowering temperatures at the surface and in the lower atmosphere.

Previous research suggested that early 21st-century eruptions might explain up to a third of the recent warming hiatus.

New research available online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (link is external) (GRL) further identifies observational climate signals caused by recent volcanic activity. This new research complements an earlier GRL paper published in November, which relied on a combination of ground, air and satellite measurements, indicating that a series of small 21st-century volcanic eruptions deflected substantially more solar radiation than previously estimated.

and

the study by Ridley and colleagues combined observations from ground-, air- and space-based instruments to better observe aerosols in the lower portion of the stratosphere. They used these improved estimates of total volcanic aerosols in a simple climate model, and estimated that volcanoes may have caused cooling of 0.05 degrees to 0.12 degrees Celsius since 2000.

The second Livermore-led study shows that the signals of these late 20th and early 21st eruptions can be positively identified in atmospheric temperature, moisture and the reflected solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. A vital step in detecting these volcanic signals is the removal of the "climate noise" caused by El Niños and La Niñas.

"The fact that these volcanic signatures are apparent in multiple independently measured climate variables really supports the idea that they are influencing climate in spite of their moderate size," said Mark Zelinka, another Livermore author. "If we wish to accurately simulate recent climate change in models, we cannot neglect the ability of these smaller eruptions to reflect sunlight away from Earth."

To see the full research, go to Geophysical Research Letters (link is external) and the Wiley Online Library (link is external).

The Livermore-led research involved a large interdisciplinary team of researchers with expertise in climate modeling, satellite data, stratospheric dynamics, volcanic effects on climate, model evaluation, statistics and computer science.


see also
link


Oh Look! Something not considered properly in the climate models! Makes one wonder what else they have wrong, and why it was Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and MIT and NOT not the IPCC folks who found this.

Could it be that they were so certain they were right they NEVER LOOKED AT THIS? Didn't need to…there is a consensus.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a problem as well with cloud activity modeling and water droplets or other moisture droplets in the upper atmosphere as well.

Goes back to my basic premise that they don't know as much as they think they do and by blinding themselves to outside possibilities, they can miss things, important things like this.

From the IPCC themselves:

link

The evaluation of clouds in climate models has long been based on comparisons of observed and simulated climatologies of TOA radiative fluxes and total cloud amount (see Section 8.3.1). However, a good agreement with these observed quantities may result from compensating errors.

So, the agreement may be because of what they think, or it may be because of (for now) compensating errors. So the "agreement" may or may not continue, and they may or may not know why…
and

Although the errors in the simulation of the different cloud types may eventually compensate and lead to a prediction of the mean CRF in agreement with observations (see Section 8.3), they cast doubts on the reliability of the model cloud feedbacks.

I've been casting doubts all along about the modeling.

For instance, given the nonlinear dependence of cloud albedo on cloud optical depth, the overestimate of the cloud optical thickness implies that a change in cloud optical depth, even of the right sign and magnitude, would produce a too small radiative signature. Similarly, the under-prediction of low- and mid-level clouds presumably affects the magnitude of the radiative response to climate warming in the widespread regions of subsidence. Modelling assumptions controlling the cloud water phase (liquid, ice or mixed) are known to be critical for the prediction of climate sensitivity. However, the evaluation of these assumptions is just beginning

So, they know that they don't know the scope of the errors or the sensitivity and the modeling assumptions are critical for the predictions. And they don't know how good those assumptions are. Which means, they may not be good at all.

8.6.3.2.4 Conclusion on cloud feedbacks
Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable. However, progress has been made in the identification of the cloud types, the dynamical regimes and the regions of the globe responsible for the large spread of cloud feedback estimates among current models. This is likely to foster more specific observational analyses and model evaluations that will improve future assessments of climate change cloud feedbacks.


So as they observe more they MAY learn more that MAY or MAY NOT improve future assessments of climate change cloud feedback.

Sound like a lot of what I've been saying about computer modeling and simplifying assumptions are proving to be a sticking point with the models and their predictions.

I'm sure the Kool Aid gang will still insist they are right, the science is settled, blah, blah, blah. The IPCC themselves have made my point and LLL's study has found answers the IPCC hadn't factored in or correctly considered.

JJ

Terrement13 Jan 2015 1:27 p.m. PST

OK, now that I'm done venting…

This is a great illustration of how one seemingly small component of an incredibly complex and changing equation was disregarded via a simplifying assumption (we don't really have the data but it seems like this is too small of a factor to consider) turned out to have significant impact on the results.

My concerns include but are not limited to:
1. how many other simplifying assumptions are included that similarly be wrong or incorrectly modeled? I have no idea. Neither do they. But LLL just proved that they do exist, and they can have a significant impact on both the ability to predict correctly, and a more complete understanding of how the puzzle fits together.

2. I'll readily admit I'm not personally connected, and get little that is not available to everyone on the web, but my perception is that the IPCC suffers from an arrogance of correctness. They believe they have it solved, even when they can't explain things. That (not only are we not thinking outside the box, we're nailing the box shut and nothing outside the box exists) mentality precludes any possibility of them finding what else they may have missed, what may seem true based on data they have but not hold in other places where they do not have data, and similar possibilities.

"All models are wrong, but some of them are useful." link
The trick is knowing how wrong they are, and how useful they are, and the ability to frame the output against the real world. Kinda like the stereotypical story of the Meteorologist who has his computer simulations and models and math and charts and is predicting fair weather but not looking outside to see that actually, it is raining.

In the work I do, there is a need for the operators to understand the capabilities and limitations of the models that provide the predictions and assessments. They need to be able to say when a computer answer may look good but be operationally questionable. They need to be able to say when the results look questionable, but operationally, it makes sense to go forward in spite of, rather than because of the analysis. In one component of the bigger picture of what I do, an anomaly was discovered with one particular issue in one particular circumstance where the predictions and reality were very different and counter intuitive. Had this specific instance not have been happened upon (the right components, the right mix of variables, and other key specifics unique to the situation) no one would have known this problem existed. There would have been no analysis to determine why the predicted results were off, how to correct the predictions, and perhaps most importantly, whether there was anything from this specific case that could be extended to other cases.

I just don't see a lot of that from the folks who know they are right, keep doubling down on their predictions, and never seem to be willing to see if the problem with the predictions isn't the real world not behaving properly, but something wrong or missing in the model itself. Even their method for dealing with "alleged" errors PDF link is curious, in terms of what they do and don't do and why. Their approach to "conflict of interest" PDF link also makes for some good reading, and should immediately raise questions in the minds of anyone who reads them.

Perhaps they can't do that – they've come so far for so long being so certain that to admit there is a problem and they may not have gotten right is just not "politically" acceptable to the movement. So they continue to try to fit the square peg in the round hole rather than looking for the square hole where that peg goes, and the round peg as well.

JJ

chuck05 Fezian13 Jan 2015 1:43 p.m. PST

The global warming supporters dont care about facts and data. They just want to advance their agenda and will manipulate the facts and data to match their desired outcome.

Personal logo Saber6 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian13 Jan 2015 2:04 p.m. PST

True chuck, but that ain't science (unless you are grant funded)

Terrement13 Jan 2015 2:17 p.m. PST

If you read what I've posted above and the links, it may be an explanation that MAY explain why we aren't seeing any warming that would be occurring as predicted had the volcanoes not erupted. In which case, it adds to the possibility that the IPCC folks MAY have it right.

My concern is their certainty, given what they don't know, haven't figured correctly, etc.

Which could mean a lot of different things.

Regardless of what it ends up meaning, and what else is yet to be learned, I still find the organization suspect in their actions, as well as their policies – see the two linked PDFs for examples.

Personal logo Jlundberg Supporting Member of TMP13 Jan 2015 2:36 p.m. PST

just you wait
the usual suspects will be by.
Interesting since volcanoes also pump out CO2.
The issue really does need research to kick and pull at the science to improve our understanding

Who asked this joker13 Jan 2015 2:59 p.m. PST

Oh here we go again… grin

Maddaz11113 Jan 2015 3:15 p.m. PST

I would love to see worldwide funding projects on climate change, with at least three different labs doing experiments independently on the same basic evidence (in secret).

All of them to present their finding simultaneously … and lets see if we get three different findings.

In the mean time, just in case Climate Change is right, and mankind is at least partly responsible, let us try to reduce, reuse, recycle, and minimise energy overconsumption.

JSchutt13 Jan 2015 6:14 p.m. PST

We are but fleas on an elephant. To think we can influence it's behavior in any predictable way somewhat foolhardy. I think I will start a movement to stop plate tectonics, erosion… or at least support taxing foreign countries to stop continents from moving scarily in my direction. Elements on the earth and/or in our immediate solar system can collude to shrug us out of existence without even trying…. simply by acting….. normally. We are not masters of the earth… just temporary passengers.

Only Warlock13 Jan 2015 6:59 p.m. PST

This is what, the 15th different reason for the "hiatus"?

Or, as we call it, "normal temperatures".

I call shenanigans.

I really don't know why you constantly post this stuff on TMP.

At least Tango ' s stuff has some validity even at its most tenuous.

Only Warlock13 Jan 2015 7:06 p.m. PST

I thought it was the deep ocean currents.

link

Only Warlock13 Jan 2015 7:07 p.m. PST

No! It's "low solar activity "

link

Only Warlock13 Jan 2015 7:09 p.m. PST

Or is it "Pine Aerosols "

link

Only Warlock13 Jan 2015 7:10 p.m. PST

No! It's trade winds!

link

mandt213 Jan 2015 10:09 p.m. PST

Terrement, correct me if I'm wrong, but your intent in these climate change threads is to debunk climate change. Right? And to do this you have cherry-picked articles that support your opinion. Right? So, the fact is that you are not really discussing scientific data in an objective way, but rather using these selected articles to prop up your opinion, that climate change is a hoax. It's called confirmation bias. It's the stuff of conspiracy theories.

Could it be that they were so certain they were right they NEVER LOOKED AT THIS? Didn't need to…there is a consensus.

Why would you assume that this is the case? Even I knew that volcanic ejecta caused sunlight to be reflected away from earth, impacting climate at least temporarily. I'm pretty certain that I was aware of this as far back as Mt St. Helens. So, all I get from your statement is that you found a single source (the IPCC) that could not explain the hiatus, and you are attempting to make that the poster child for debunking climate change theory as a whole. BTW, I can cite two other sources that did not consider volcanic activity for contributing to the hiatus, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes.

But let's take a look world temps over a longer period than 14 years.

link

Look at the Temps World Wide 1901-2014. A trend line would run from -1 degree F in 1910 to a little over 1 degree F in 2020. Chuck05, note, that is real data and real fact. Here you go, more charts more data, more facts:

link

Here's another suggesting that warming estimates over the past 16 years has been greatly underestimated:

link

The link above actually features some interesting debate on what the charts actually mean.

This site lets you create your own climate change histogram:

link

This one I really find interesting:

link

The Economist is a conservative, business friendly periodical, not unlike the WSJ and Forbes. Yet the opinion of the Economist on this issue is quite different.

Finally, there is this article that tracks the climate change debate from the 1930s to present. Terrement, note that discussion concerning the temporary cooling affect of volcanoes back in the 1960s.

Note, these links were not cherry picked. I posted the first links that came up with two exceptions. I did not post links to sights supporting climate change that I did not think were scholarly. The second exception was NASA, since we already know they support climate change theory.

Chuck & Saber-

For additional "facts" and "Data" on climate change here are some scholarly articles. Read a few of them. Recrunch the numbers and see if you can debunk their studies.

link

BTW, consider it was when George W. Bush was president that the CIA issue its report on the world wide security threat posed by global climate change.

We are but fleas on an elephant. To think we can influence it's behavior in any predictable way somewhat foolhardy.

It would seem so, JSchutt, except that we have already changed the climate in a number of regions. Deforestation has changed the climate in Brazil. Denuded regions are now drier and hotter than before. Back in the 1920s several thousand farmers in the American midwest plowed up all the prairie grasses, overfarmed the region, resulting in millions of metric tons of topsoil being lifted up and blown out to the Atlantic ocean. Millions of acres were permanently rendered unfarmable and ever since the climate of the affected region is hotter and drier.

*****
But the climate debate isn't really about climate change anymore is it. It's a political debate, right?

goragrad13 Jan 2015 11:35 p.m. PST

Well, aside from being created expressly to push the CO2 AGW threat, the IPCC reports are supposed to be a synthesis of the latest best research on climate. Wouldn't say that they are merely 'one among many' in the climate field.

Sorry the EPA is so heavily politicized they are not worth much as a reference (although by EPA records 1934(?) has the record for record high temperatures).

The worst drought in 1000 years (NASA) caused the Dust Bowl. Dust resulting from the combination of the drought and poor farming practices 'probably' made it worse. Based of course on models. They don't farm that way anymore.

CIA, DOD, etc. reports on potential impacts of climate change, etc. are often 'worst case scenarios' of events with low probability. Occasionally they are rationales for increased budgets…

Terrement14 Jan 2015 6:06 a.m. PST

Mandt2,


You are wrong. Period.


To pose your question and accuse me of cherry picking articles would indicate you aren't reading what I've actually written, or are willfully going in with a preconceived notion and as such, missing both the words and the point of what I'm saying..

Please re-read my posts in the thread and get back to me. I'll not respond to cherry picked excerpts of what I've posted while you willfully ignore what I've repeatedly stated.

JJ

Jakse37514 Jan 2015 8:02 a.m. PST

MAddaz111 FTW

Personal logo T Callahan Supporting Member of TMP14 Jan 2015 11:14 a.m. PST

Shouldn't this be posted on the Blue Fez? Suddenly we are getting all these postings on climate change. I for one would like to see this conversation moved to Blue Fez.

Terry

Terrement14 Jan 2015 11:18 a.m. PST

Terry,

I'm discussing the modeling and the science, which seems to belong on the science board. As for the Fez, I have no interest in going there, although folks who want to go beyond the scientific discussion certainly may prefer to vent their respective spleens there. You may choose to open a discussion of your own there.

Please feel free to join in, whatever your position might be, if you'd like.

Cheers,

JJ

mandt214 Jan 2015 11:06 p.m. PST

You are wrong. Period.

Prove me wrong then.

I'm discussing the modeling and the science…

Okay let's go there. Here is how science works.

I hypothesized that your conclusions about climate change based on your sources (WSJ, Forbes) were incorrect.

I supported my hypothesis by first stating the fact that neither the WSJ nor Forbes were scholarly documents and therefore were not, in themselves, robust sources of hard data. They are in fact financial news publications with strong ties to industries that have a substantial interest in seeing that the theory of climate change be debunked.

I then challenged your conclusions by posting links to numerous scholarly and research sources that contradicted your implication that the "hiatus" cast doubt on climate change theory as a whole. In fact, several of the sources presented data that showed that by some measures there has been no "hiatus."

So I can now conclude that my hypothesis was correct. The data I found showed that your theory was based on weak, non-scholarly sources with little scientific data to support them.

Now it is your turn to challenge my conclusion. Since we are talking about "science" here your methodology should also be to present "numerous scholarly and research sources" that successfully challenge mine. Or you can reinterpret the data I presented to demonstrate that it does not show what I claim it does.

That's it. That in a nutshell is the scientific method. You present your data and conclusions, and then sit back and prepare yourself for the intellectual beating. This can go back and forth for years, even decades, with rivalries so fierce that it makes our discussion here read like "Fun with Dick and Jane."

To pose your question and accuse me of cherry picking articles would indicate you aren't reading what I've actually written, or are willfully going in with a preconceived notion and as such, missing both the words and the point of what I'm saying..

Perhaps you can explain how I am wrong. It is pretty obvious to me that you were a denier of climate change before reading those two opinion pieces. Am I correct about that? Why would someone so vehemently defend a "scientific" opinion based on pieces written for two financial periodicals unless the opinion of the articles resonated with a predisposed opinion of their own? Since you are holding fast to your conclusion based on your two sources and don't even acknowledge the strength of the many scholarly sources and data I have presented (in the links I posted), you are selectively picking your sources to support your opinion. That is by definition, cherry-picking, and it is what is described as confirmation bias.

OR, am I wrong? Were you actually a supporter of climate change until you read those two stories?

Now, for the record, I did not search out the sources I linked to in my previous post. All I did was google the topic and up came dozens of scholarly analyses by researchers of many different disciplines. I did not select any for their conclusions I pretty much posted them in the order I found them. Take a look at them and then explain to me how the conclusions of those researchers are wrong.

mandt214 Jan 2015 11:39 p.m. PST

Sorry the EPA is so heavily politicized they are not worth much as a reference

Gorgorad-

I expected someone might jump on this and I'm glad you did. It helps me demonstrate a point. If that was the only link I provided, you would have had the basis of a debate (assuming you are correct). But it was not the only link. It was one of many, and since it shows the same trends as do most (if not all) of the other sources the implication that the EPA cannot present data objectively is not supported.

(although by EPA records 1934(?) has the record for record high temperatures).

You are talking "weather." Climate change is measured by trends over long periods of time. A single "cold" or "warm" year is an anomaly.

The worst drought in 1000 years (NASA) caused the Dust Bowl. Dust resulting from the combination of the drought and poor farming practices 'probably' made it worse. Based of course on models. They don't farm that way anymore.

(I discussed this in the previous thread on this subject.) That's correct. In fact that drought may very well have been a product of climate change. The farming practices made it worse, not "probably." Farmers plowed up all of the prairie grass and over-farmed their fields. The naked dry soil heated up causing a change in the regional climate. High winds blew all of the top soil out to the Atlantic, leaving large areas of the region permanently unfarmable. Check out the documentary "Black Blizzard."

CIA, DOD, etc. reports on potential impacts of climate change, etc. are often 'worst case scenarios' of events with low probability. Occasionally they are rationales for increased budgets…

I read only parts of the CIA report, and to me it read more like a "warning, we need to do something or else." But if you found some hyperbole, please post it here. I'd be interested in seeing it. Honestly it read to me more like the infamous August 10th memo, "bin Laden is determined to attack the U.S." Like I said, a warning.

But look Gorgorad, you are speculating that two or three of the many sources might have an agenda here. They might. But you do realize that on the other side the fossil fuel industry pays millions to lobbyists each year to convince us of exactly what you say, and to convince us that climate change is a hoax. And that's not speculation. That's fact.

IPCC reports are supposed to be a synthesis of the latest best research on climate. Wouldn't say that they are merely 'one among many' in the climate field.

That may very well be. Climate theory is not the product of only the "climate field." Today's climate theory is the product of research by tens of thousands of researchers from many disciplines, climatologists, geologists, oceanic researchers, biologists, botanists, chemists, and yes even archaeologists (like me). Much of the data is the result of research that has little to do with climate. For example, a lot of years ago, I was doing some research with several other peeps on prehistoric human migration patterns in the American southwest. We had a lot of ideas what was driving these movements. Ultimately, we determined that climate change played an important role in human migration patterns in the study region.

We were not seeking funding for our research. We did not intend to prove or disprove any theories. We did it because we wanted to know why.

I could go on more about the project, and if you are interested PM me. I've written too much here already tonight.

Terrement15 Jan 2015 6:49 a.m. PST

You are wrong. Period.
Prove me wrong then.

and

Perhaps you can explain how I am wrong. It is pretty obvious to me that you were a denier of climate change before reading those two opinion pieces

"Pretty obvious?" A "denier?"

Well, I gave you the chance to re-read what I posted, and you apparently chose to not do so.

You wanted me to prove it.

OK, here you go.

"So, the fact is that you are not really discussing scientific data in an objective way, but rather using these selected articles to prop up your opinion, that climate change is a hoax.

No the FACT is that I've not claimed it is a hoax at all – please re-read these recent threads and show me where that is the case. When you admit you can't do that, I'll go back through for you (who seems to have a reading comprehension and retention problem) where I SPECIFICALLY spell out my position – and it is NOT that climate change is a hoax.

1.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a problem as well with cloud activity modeling and water droplets or other moisture droplets in the upper atmosphere as well. Goes back to my basic premise that they don't know as much as they think they do and by blinding themselves to outside possibilities, they can miss things, important things like this.

Sure sounds like I'm specifically questioning the modeling

2.

So, the agreement may be because of what they think, or it may be because of (for now) compensating errors. So the "agreement" may or may not continue, and they may or may not know why…and …I've been casting doubts all along about the modeling.

Sure sounds like I'm still speaking specifically about the modeling

3.

So, they know that they don't know the scope of the errors or the sensitivity and the modeling assumptions are critical for the predictions. And they don't know how good those assumptions are. Which means, they may not be good at all.

Modeling again, no?
4.

So as they observe more they MAY learn more that MAY or MAY NOT improve future assessments of climate change cloud feedback.
Sound like a lot of what I've been saying about computer modeling and simplifying assumptions are proving to be a sticking point with the models and their predictions.

More on modeling. Or did you miss that?
5.

This is a great illustration of how one seemingly small component of an incredibly complex and changing equation was disregarded via a simplifying assumption (we don't really have the data but it seems like this is too small of a factor to consider) turned out to have significant impact on the results.
My concerns include but are not limited to:
1. how many other simplifying assumptions are included that similarly be wrong or incorrectly modeled? I have no idea. Neither do they. But LLL just proved that they do exist, and they can have a significant impact on both the ability to predict correctly, and a more complete understanding of how the puzzle fits together.

All of which has to do with how they model and the results they get
They believe they have it solved, even when they can't explain things. That (not only are we not thinking outside the box, we're nailing the box shut and nothing outside the box exists) mentality precludes any possibility of them finding what else they may have missed, what may seem true based on data they have but not hold in other places where they do not have data, and similar possibilities
Raising questions about their solutions and conclusions and assumptions, proven to be wrong, and elements disregarded as shown by their own documentation – notice there is no claim that climate change is a hoax. Or did you get a different version of what I posted?
7.

I just don't see a lot of that from the folks who know they are right, keep doubling down on their predictions, and never seem to be willing to see if the problem with the predictions isn't the real world not behaving properly, but something wrong or missing in the model itself

Oh look – that damned "M" word again!.

8.

If you read what I've posted above and the links, it may be an explanation that MAY explain why we aren't seeing any warming that would be occurring as predicted had the volcanoes not erupted. In which case, it adds to the possibility that the IPCC folks MAY have it right.
My concern is their certainty, given what they don't know, haven't figured correctly, etc.
Which could mean a lot of different things.

Oh look – a direct statement that not only does not claim that global warming is a hoax but also opens the door to something that I posted in explanation MAY SUPPORT THE IPCC CASE. I guess somehow that slipped your notice as well.

Now, go back to my earlier thread.

TMP link
Since you invited me to stick your nose into the nonsense you claim about my position, I'll continue. An examination of that thread will also yield such specific statements as:
1.

A quote from a scientist that stated: "Climate change is a natural phenomenon while pollution is caused by man. We are definitely accelerating the process of climate change, but we cannot predict the rate or extent of climate change that can be attributed to man,"

2.
the usual load of baloney that comes from folks who refuse to acknowledge that data trumps models, and models that can't accurately predict are worthless for predicting the future or developing policy,

3.
The fact that I post a dissenting voice from what should be acceptable sources does not mean I agree with everything they say. I am saying that their statements back my position that we don't "know" what is going on, despite loud claims to the contrary. And many of the "Profits of Doom" claims are baseless. So, as to your question as to what I accept from the article and will agree to, my response is: "Not completely." Happy to accept climate is continually changing. I don't "know" why and neither does anyone else

Seems like three pretty solid statements against your "hoax" claim. Very specific, no?
.
4.
We DO know that none of these proposed fixes are worth a lick if everyone of significance is not onboard – wouldn't you agree? China is growing in use of fossil fuel and coal. India as well Germany is switching to coal. Japan is going to coal. So all of the DiCaprio-Gore-Redford-Cameron-etc. "solutions" in the world seem pointless in addition to hypocritical, given the loudest voices. No? If not, then why not?

Discusses the issue of fixes, not existence of a problem
5.

I'm certainly not advocating doing nothing, or burying my head in the sand until we learn too late who, if anyone is right.

Again, no claim that climate change is a hoax

6.

But all of the approaches I've heard discussed to this point (1) are based on a lot of conjecture and little reality (2) have no chance of working without worldwide 'buy-in" and (3) have no real cost to benefit analysis metrics, nor have I heard any proposals for how to change direction if it turns out that what they are doing is ineffective, or worse, harmful. The stereotypical method seems to be (1) We KNOW what needs to be done (whether you do or not) (2) a course of action is taken. No metrics exist, no independent evaluation is taken. (3) if it is unsuccessful, the answer always seems to be "we just aren't spending enough" or "we haven't done it long enough" based on no actual data other than "it isn't working." No relooking at the assumptions, no relooking at the approach for possible defects. Nope. It is always "we're right and we KNOW so give us more money" regardless of the cost or impacts elsewhere.

Again, pointing out the problem with all of the proposed solutions thus far – no denial here

7.

1. Nearly two decades of non warming = non-warming
2. Our continued if not increasing of actions that are supposedly causing the warming is having no effect, based on no warming = we are not the primary cause.
3. The models that have incorrectly predicted continued warming are wrong, based on non-warming = the models are unreliable.
4. The models being unreliable = they are no basis for decisions or predictions.
5. I'm not sure when the Pope became a climate scientist – he clearly has an agenda, but is as qualified to speak definitively on the subject as those other climate experts I've previously mentioned – DiCaprio, Gore, Redford, Cameron, etc.
So unless you have data that refutes the actual record of non-warming, you don't have much of a leg on which to stand.

Again, the problem starts with the models, not the presence or absence of climate change. Nothing there states it is a hoax, but repeatedly continues my stand against the unreliable models and their ability to accurately predict.

8.

Climate isn't that cut and dry, with many more variables and interactions that are neither well documented or understood.

Such as with IPCC failing to even consider non-major volcanic eruptions as a contributor to global cooling, and no real method for including major ones either, based on their non-predictability – again read the IPCC report. I did The fact that you can't model something that is known and documented to have significant effects does not entitle you to say OK, we'll ignore it" But again, no claim of a hoax, is there?
9.

I do not and never have proposed doing nothing. I have, justifiably, demanded that things done are provably beneficial and with a cost benefit analysis. Otherwise, you end up with tremendously expensive failures like Spain's government run green energy program, or, God forbid, the equivalent of the "by God we need to do something NOW to save the earth!" Crowd putting coal ash in the arctic to melt the ice to prevent the next ice age.

No "hoax" claim there either – just pointing out the failure of expensive well-intentioned efforts earlier, and the possibility that if the scientists get it wrong, as they did with global cooling – and some of the AGW crowd are those same folks – that doing the WRONG thing is potentially worse than doing nothing.

10.

As I stated above, (09 Jan 2015 11:10 a.m. PST ) I don't know and am not claiming that it is a case as you describe, a temporary flatlining before heating restarts, or if it will stay flat for a much longer period of time, or if it is an inflection and the start of a downturn.
The point is, the IPCC folks don't know either. Their models don't predict it. They can't explain it. Yet we are told that "Hey, it's OK, these guys are EXPERTS so we need to do what they say."

Once more, I'm claiming to not know – hardly calling it a hoax

11.

Do you have any links about the independent validation and verification of their computer models? I haven't seen any – maybe just not aware of ones that exist.

Damned "M" word strikes again…seems to be a recurring theme, no?


12. or the skeptics like me who think it is somewhere in the middle but do not pretend to know enough to model a century from now, are right.

A very specific statement of my position – which, incidentally does not seem to say what you think it says.

13.

There are also some good points to read from both sides of the argument in the comment section of that last link. Highly recommended. Bring an open mind.

Hardly sounds like the invitation a "HOAX!" proponent would make, let alone post as a point of discussion. If I were claiming that climate change was a hoax, why would I post this, let alone excourage folks to read the comments on both sides?

14.

But I'm not going to argue with you. Either the models are independently verified, or they are not. As far as I know, they are not The models can be relied upon to accurately predict or not. If feeding in past data does not result in what we have now, it is foolish to believe they can accurately predict a century ahead with it and use those predictions as drivers for specific, unproven and expensive actions.

Just can't escape the issue I have with the modeling…

15.

THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
You can see just how seriously all of these major players are taking this. They may talk the good talk, but in the end I suspect the bottom line will be what the country in question sees as the bottom line NOW not EVENTUALLY (kicking the proverbial can down the road).
Coal worldwide included in this report – it is going up.
PDF link
Take the India quote:
""India's development imperatives cannot be sacrificed at the altar of potential climate changes many years in the future," " and put just about any country in there and the results are probably going to be exactly the same.

So, y'all better hope the scientists in the OP are right, or the deniers are right, or the skeptics are right.
Once more, challenging the seriousness with which the world leaders are actually taking the issue. No hoax claim.


So, how about next time, knowing what the Bleeped text you are talking about before crediting a false totally unsupportable by evidence position and then attacking that straw man? Folks like you who take this sort of approach are part of why it is impossible, or nearly so, to have an intelligent discussion on the matter. As such, I have two words for you, and they are not "Happy Birthday."

Please let me know when you are serious.


"Could it be that they were so certain they were right they NEVER LOOKED AT THIS? Didn't need to…there is a consensus."

To which you protested:

Why would you assume that this is the case?

I DIDN'T ASSUME ANYTHING. YOU DID
Because, I suspect, that unlike you, I actually read what the IPCC report has to say on the subject:
PDF link

But hey, all you need is a loud accusation without ever even looking to see if what I said was true – the louder you yell and point fingers, the more true your claim must be, right?

"But the climate debate isn't really about climate change anymore is it. It's a political debate, right?"


It is both, and anyone who thinks it is not is blind to what is going on. Science is involved. Political ideology is involved. MONEY is involved.

AND AS YOU HAVE SO NICELY PROVEN IN THIS INSTRUCTIVE MOMENT, IT IS ALSO ABOUT TRUE BELIEVERS WITH PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS WHO ARE ALL TOO WILLING TO MAKE ABSURD ASSUMPTIONS NOT BASED ON FACT AND USE THAT TO ATTACK THE POSITION OF OTHERS.


Q. E. D.
JJ

P.S. Have you noticed yet that I have a problem with the modeling?

Have you noticed that I have NOT, as you allege, called climate change a hoax? I would think that I've made my case adequately, but then I apparently incorrectly thought my position was pretty clear based on what I actually posted, as opposed to what you apparently "know" about my "true position" based on what I'm secretly hiding but not really saying.

Since you were so wrong based on so many specific statements and examples I've provided thus far, I have to ask…

GarrisonMiniatures15 Jan 2015 7:36 a.m. PST

'In the mean time, just in case Climate Change is right, and mankind is at least partly responsible, let us try to reduce, reuse, recycle, and minimise energy overconsumption.'

Pretty much my viewpoint, though I'm inclined to believe it is right.

Terrement15 Jan 2015 7:51 a.m. PST

Never disagreed with that position, even if it ends up man isn't even remotely responsible.

We should all be working to reduce, reuse, recycle and minimize energy consumption. Unlike the aforementioned hypocrites (DiCaprio, et.al.) I frequently bash. They remind me of what the WH school lunch program provides for kids as opposed to what their kids and they eat for lunch.

As motivation for everyone, I offer this motivational message:

YouTube link

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP15 Jan 2015 6:34 p.m. PST

We should all be working to reduce, reuse, recycle and minimize energy consumption.

Which assumes that these are necessarily good goals. What is being reduced? Why are we minimizing energy consumption? Is recycling really as environmentally friendly as sold, considering the energy requirements and chemicals necessary to do recycling? I'm not saying any of these are necessarily bad things, but that they may not actually necessarily be good things, either.

What, after all, is the goal?
If the goal is eliminating hazardous chemicals in our air, soil and water, or at least reducing them to reasonably safe levels for ourselves and our descendants, I would certainly consider that a good goal. But I need to know that the requests being made are valid solutions, and not just so much sloganeering.
If the goal is fending off a catastrophic increase in global temperature, I first need to be convinced that such an increase is in fact happening (for which, as Terrement rightly points out, we need accurate and effective models, not assumptions and rigid assertions that don't in the end reflect the actual reality). Then I need to be convinced it would indeed be catastrophic. And then I need to be convinced that the solutions being proposed would actually be effective solutions. At this stage, I'm not persuaded on any of these three points, and least of all on the last two, tied as they are to very specific political agendas with a strong potential for long term economic and social harm.
Nothing should be done because it merely sounds emotionally soothing or "environmentally friendly." Instead, everything should be soundly examined for both its real impact across all areas, and as to whether it will actually do real good towards a good and logical goal.

As to reducing, reusing, recycling and minimizing energy consumption:

1. Reduce if the reducing serves a real environmental or social or personal purpose. But be aware that reducing (presumably overall consumption of goods and services), in and of itself risks causing great economic harm; if demand for goods and services lessens, then so will the employment levels to provide goods and services lessen. If people buy less stuff, then less stuff will be made. If less stuff is made, then fewer people will be needed to make the stuff. Cue firings, layoffs and business closings, then cue increased demand for social resources that coincide (due to income and profit reductions) with reduced tax revenues… boom, economic disaster, with real people suffering in real ways. Reusing and recycling can contribute to the same thing,

2. Will recycling actually contribute to sound environmental goals? It takes energy (currently oil-based) to collect refuse to recycle it. It takes energy (fossil fuel-based) to clean, breakdown and reform/remanufacture this refuse as well. It takes special chemicals to perform these various steps, which themselves must be collected, transported, etc., etc.. And, of course, the question is certainly relevant as to how dangerous such chemicals or the waste produced might be. Thus, is recycling that aluminum can truly more environmentally friendly than burying it? A valid question. (It may be; but I've never really noticed anyone bothering to ask, either…)

3.) If minimizing energy consumption is good, why is it good? Is the demand too high? Will minimizing consumption effectively counteract the world-wide rise in energy demand? My guess is not. Might not a better solution be to put greater emphasis on developing an unlimited energy supply that can, with minimal environmental impact, provide for the world's energy demands now and in the future? Minimizing to me seems like a stop-gap, not a solution… and not a very effective stop-gap at that.

So it's not enough for me to automatically agree to anything, and least of all to anything whose effects are neither truly understood nor sufficiently explained.

Terrement16 Jan 2015 7:52 a.m. PST

Parzival,

You raise some valid points and questions that unfortunately won't fit on a bumper sticker. I can't speak for the world, but here's my take.

The catch phrase, like most catch phrases, is meant to be a general approach, not a scientifically documented study. The motivation is my own, based on what I see locally, here in Va Beach VA, with the attendant problems of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.

Reducing energy consumption, by me, locally, is likely little more than a drop in the bucket, so to speak, in the totality of fuel consumption. Taken by itself, it is meaningless. Taken with a larger group locally, it may make a difference. Personally, using less fuel means I'm burning less gas. This means I'm: (1) contributing less to air pollution – not as bad a problem as a place like L.A. or Bejing, but still a tiny piece locally. I'm burning less gas which means I'm not spending as much on gas and have that income to better spend on other things. I'm driving less, so there are fewer miles on the car, which in turn affects timing of maintenance (cost) as well as wear and tear on the car. I'm also less likely to be in an accident – an issue locally because of the numbers of young adult males we have (colleges, military) especially when said military return from deployments. The Hampton Roads are is always in contention with the DC/NoVA area for top rated road rage location in the state.

2. Reuse makes sense from a cost basis, as well as from a consumption basis (with the associated costs of making, transporting, collecting, and disposing) where it makes sense to do so. When I remodeled the kitchen and downstairs bathroom,some years ago, I could have just demo'ed all of the cabinetry. I then could have purchased all new for use in my garage. The debris from the demo has to go somewhere. It has to be picked up, taken there piled up, burned or buried. All of which also takes land space, trucks and earth movers, time for the decomposition, etc.

3. Recycling, in and of itself is a trickier proposition because of the cost benefit of the sorting collection, handling, etc. as opposed to simply putting all of it together in a landfill. Some argue that from a cost standpoint looking only at the direct cost cost of one vs. direct cost of the other, X is better than Y. The problem is that it becomes more difficult to assess the cost and impact of each process. What is the availability of a landfill? How much can it take for how long? What is the environmental effect of that pile of stuff? How far away is it from the area served resulting in more heavy truck traffic on the roads (fuel, congestion, road wear, pollution, stones thrown at windshields of folks too close)? How many other sites will be available in the future? How much stuff that shouldn't be in the landfill ends up there anyway – paints, chemicals, non-incandescent bulbs, other toxic materials)? A comparison might be the question of development of mass transit for an area, and if so, what type and where should it be? In this area, there are proponents of light rail. Norfolk funded a section that runs from the edge of their border with Virginia Beach, running into downtown. Concept is to get traffic off I-264 going into Norfolk. It is convenient and not expensive if you want to go to Norfolk State University, or Tidewater Park where our farm club for the Orioles play, or MacArthur Mall in downtown Norfolk, or even a bit beyond to one of the major hospitals. Is the money earned enough to pay for the system? Hard to get anyone to release those figures, but I suspect it is not, though don't know wat the shortfall is. Is the benefit of having it and taking those cars off the road, and less gas burned, and less need for parking facilities enough to offset the cost difference? I don 't know, and I suspect if anyone does, they aren't saying. The REAL need is not to and from downtown Norfolk, but to and from NOB Norfolk, the largest naval base in the world. That would make the single biggest positive change to traffic. Yet, the folks with the money wanted something else, so that is what was built. I won't detail the pretzel logic to there, nor go on about the proposed expansion.

Your question 3 seems fragmented, but maybe I'm misreading it or your intention. Minimizing energy consumption IMHO is good because it takes less power generation to meet the demand, demand is growing faster than what can be produced, and money and environmental and other special interest groups won't allow nuclear power, are shutting down coal, and don't have replacements for the lost generation of power to meet existing needs, let alone growing demands. Brownouts? Blackouts? So cutting consumption in and of itself is as you suggest, a band aid to treat the symptom but not the solution. Clean power generation is the answer, and natural gas is the biggest first step in that direction – wind and solar have their own limitations and shortcomings, including green concerns (being ignored).

So for me, it isn't automatically agreeing to anything even though GarrisonMiniatures did not detail his explanation nor convey his own understanding of what it means. I have my own interpretation, along with the limitations that come with it.

The greatest commandments are about loving God completely, and treating others as you would be treated. No detailed explanation, limitations and exceptions exist. But the bumper sticker like phrase is no less a valid one because the details are lacking.

JJ

GarrisonMiniatures16 Jan 2015 9:22 a.m. PST

Reducing, reusing and recycling all need to be considered on a more-or-less individua basis. Reducing energy consumption wouldn't make sense if the energy you are reducing is being made anyway – for example, not using all the energy produced by a solar panel. Reusing reaches a point where you may be losing efficiency or repair and maintenance costs aree excessive and if recycling costs more in energy/raw materials than producing new it (may not) make sense to recycle – though with recycling cost isn't always the important point.

Re my own views, I think they've been expressed quite frequently in the past. Put simply, I think that man's activities have an effect. That effect is accepted by many to be at least a contributing factor in global warming. Detractors often say this is a political viewpoint for various nefarious reasons. However, that doesn't make sense. Governments look on growth as a measure of success, and that depends on increasing energy useage. Likewise, major companies – and especially the oil companies – also have a fundamental requirement involving increasing energy and resource useage. In other words, they should be the ones debunking the idea of global warming and it's effects.

Terrement16 Jan 2015 9:46 a.m. PST

Governments look on growth as a measure of success, and that depends on increasing energy useage.

Which is why, particularly as put to voice by the gent from India, that in the end, nations will choose "I'm fixing my country's problem economy NOW and screw the future and the world. The scientists MAY or MAY NOT be right, and there MAY be a problem that May or MAY NOT be important in the future because of other natural changes or changes in man's technology. The problem in my country IS REAL, it IS NOW and I am responsible to my people NOW. We're building and using however many coal fired power plants as we need for us TODAY.

See
TMP link
comment at 13 Jan 2015 7:48 a.m. PST


In other words, they should be the ones debunking the idea of global warming and it's effects.

Why waste the time or money? Most of the people do not consider it anywhere near their top priority. The governments aren't taking it seriously, as I've listed above. The energy companies don't need to prove anything to the politicians they buy – they just need to buy them.

We can't even get our government to take action on other real pressing problems that are here, today, and growing all of which adversely affect the economic future and stability and security of the country – never mind what the effect of an ineffective major world power on the international stage means globally. If we (USA) are unwilling to deal with the realities of our own many and severe problems TODAY (and in a number of them not even voice the truth about them) that are costing trillions, why would anyone think that other than pandering to their voting base and financial supporters, politicians would really worry about the effects of an unproven theory and what it means a century from now?

Cynical? You betcha!

JJ

Terrement16 Jan 2015 11:12 a.m. PST

Dated, and US only, but still likely to be generally valid:

link

link


Interestingly, a gent with impressive credentials has taken a different approach – not on what the most serious problems are but how can we make the biggest difference improving the world with the money we are going to spend on solutions that will work

What could world leaders have achieved if they hadn't spent the past 25 years investing so much money and summitry on global warming? In a brilliant book, How to Spend $75 USD Billion to Make the World a Better Place, Lomborg has documented how politicians could have been tackling more pressing problems facing the world's poorest people. Action on HIV/Aids, for example, the provision of micro nutrients to hungry children, the control of malaria, guarantees of clean water and the liberalisation of trade would all have been better uses of politicians' time and taxpayers' money. ---- Tim Montgomerie, The Times

Why you should listen
Bjorn Lomborg isn't afraid to voice an unpopular opinion. In 2007, he was named one of the 100 Most Influential People by Time magazine after the publication of his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which challenged widely held beliefs that the environment is getting worse. This year, he was named on of the "50 people who cold save the planet" by the Guardian newspaper. In 2007 he published Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, further analyzes what today's science tells us about global warming and its risks. That same year, his next book Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems was released, which provided a summary of the greatest challenges facing humanity.

In 2004, he convened the Copenhagen Consensus, which tries to prioritize the world's greatest challenges based on the impact we can make, a sort of bang-for-the-buck breakdown for attacking problems such as global warming, world poverty and disease.

It begins from the premise that we can't solve every problem in the world, and asks: Which ones should we fix first? The Copenhagen Consensus 2004 tapped the expertise of world-leading economists, as well as a diverse forum of young participants; collectively, they determined that control of HIV/AIDS was the best investment -- and mitigating global warming was the worst. Lomborg summarized these findings in How to Spend $50 USD Billion to Make the World a Better Place. In spring of 2008, Copenhagen Consensus convened again, assembling over 55 international economists, including 4 Nobel laureates, to assess, prioritize and brainstorm solutions for the major global challenges of today, including conflicts, malnutrition, health, education and terrorism. In 2013, he published How to Spend $75 USD Billion to Make the World a Better Place.

available at Amazon:
link

"Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center has posed a challenging question: If we had an additional $50 USD billion to spend on mitigating global problems, how should we spend it? To suggest answers, the center convened a panel of eight distinguished economists to evaluate proposals by over two dozen specialists on problems ranging from AIDS and malnutrition to water shortage, civil war, climate change, and migration, among others. Their collective recommendation: focus on AIDS prevention, the provision of micronutrients to poor children, trade liberalization, and the control of malaria. Their choices were determined by the expected payoff, largely but not wholly in economic terms, that each of these programs could generate relative to its cost. Some issues, such as civil war, could not be evaluated in general terms and so were not ranked. The motivating principle of the exercise was that resources are limited, political leaders must make choices, and those choices should be governed by where the most good can be done for humanity -- especially for those who are so poor that they cannot look beyond where their next meal is coming from."


JJ

GarrisonMiniatures16 Jan 2015 5:00 p.m. PST

'Cynical? You betcha!'

Know that feeling well. The cynical reason Governments, etc, would like Global Warming to be a myth is because the people who pay would like it to be a myth. ie Industry and the oil producers. Smart funding would be with the debunkers, not the people who say it's happening. Funding wise, the people saying it's happening would get more for saying it isn't – they would be funded by just about everyone!

So, really, for me, the fact that Governments and scientists generally accept it's happening when they would prefer it to be a lie – well, for me that goes a fair distance in getting me to believe them.

Terrement17 Jan 2015 6:14 a.m. PST

Or maybe they accept that climate change is occurring but the AGW proponents arguments are not convincing enough to wreck economies to chase ghosts at a killing price?

jpattern217 Jan 2015 10:12 a.m. PST

Wreck economies? laugh

Terrement17 Jan 2015 12:09 p.m. PST

I've covered it in detail many times before, including recent threads here.

Countries need power to support population and economy, both growing

Insufficient sources today using the evil dirty coal and petrol as sources

There is no available source of green power available today to replace existing, let alone increase

Nukes are a non- starter given $$$$$$ and politics vs nuke power

Many key players have not only said they aren't cutting back, they are increasing coal usage…China, India, Japan, Germany to name a few.

Given the above, how pray tell, do you get to the magical reduced carbon output numbers, without shutting down economies by shutting down those power generators?

Even without Fukushima, there are steep obstacles and time to get plants on line.

Wind can't do it, solar can't do it, and both come with Eco
Official costs, conveniently being overlooked.

Government subsidized and run programs like Spain's was a total failure across the board, neither delivering what was promised, but cutting existing non-green sources off leading to power shortages and higher prices. It only cost several million to get that result.

So unless you have heard something I haven't, the "wreck the economies" seems quite apropos.

JJ

goragrad18 Jan 2015 12:31 a.m. PST

Actually mandt2 that 'probably' came from NASA. If you are more certain than they were…

Not sure where you get '10s of thousands of scientist working on research that has been synthesized into today's climate theory.' The current CO2 driver of temperature theory goes from Arrhenius to the models without too much interaction with the real world. The other sciences are only cherry picked for confirmatory evidence.

Again, the IPCC reports are not just the synthesis of a few reports on climate science. However flawed skeptics may find them they are summaries of every relevant field that bears on climate – biology, oceanography, geology, climate, solar physics, etc. The summaries may be horses designed by committees with a political agenda, but they reports are a synthesis of the latest research in each field.

Speaking of archeology and history – Mann's iconic 'hockey stick did away with the MWP and the LIA (insofar as the rise in temperatures for the last century and a half, that is what happens when the world comes out of a prolonged cooling spell).

As to the impact of higher temperatures, Holocene Climate Optimum was approx 2 degrees warmer, Minoan Optimum was warmer, Roman Optimum was warmer, and so was the Medieval Warming Period. All of the periods when humanity throve were warmer than the present.

1000-1200 year old trees are found at the foot of retreating glaciers in Alaska and the Alps. South American glaciers have exposed debris of similar age. Sea levels have been higher in Roman and Medieval times.

"With respect to Newlyn, (close to St Michaels Mount) it is probably the highest quality tide gauge record in the world. The land is the region is subsiding by about 1 mm per year due to the effects of the last glaciation. You can see the data for yourself here. Once we've taken the "glacial isostatic adjustment" into account we're left with about 1.4 mm/yr, which is typical of Europe and slightly less than the global average of 1.8 mm/yr over that time period."

So taking this into account we should reasonably assume that the sea level we see now is going to be around 1 meter greater than was current in 350BC for reasons of the land sinking and quite apart from any genuine sea level rise. Is that increase verified by the observations we can make?

No. Today St Michaels Mount is still not navigable for large parts of the tidal cycle as was also observed in historic times. There are better places nearby to have acted as a historic tin port, for the Mount is dangerous when the wind is from the wrong direction.

St Michaels Mount remains a tidal island today, although the studies seem to indicate that after 2000 years it should now be surrounded by sea at all stages of the tide due to land movement alone-irrespective of the notion of modern sea level rise. The tide window today for a fairly deep draught ship who had travelled some distance and who would be unwilling to hove to in treacherous waters is still fairly small-a matter of a few hours in each tidal cycle.

If the port was bustling 2000 years ago it is reasonable to suppose that tidal access was less limited then than it is today-or was at least as good. Consequently the evidence suggests that in 350BC there was probably a little more water than exists today in order for it to be a worthwhile place to ship cargo from, and therefore current ocean volume (glacier melt and thermal expansion) is less now than then, to take into account the known land changes. There was speculation that in Phoenician times the island was still connected to the mainland by a spine of land (Bloch et al) but that can not be authenticated by recent archaeological evidence, and as other accounts clearly describe it as a tidal island.

"In the ancient port Caesarea, south of Haifa, stands a wall which must have been built between the time of Herod and the 2nd century. (A. Negev , personal communication , 1962). The top of this wall, now 1.50 m above the present sea level, is perforated with the typical holes made by the Lithophaga. The wall stands vertical and shows no sign of tilting. Near this wall are the remains of two aqueducts which once supplied Caesarea with water. Of the two, the older one was built near the present shore line; the parallel and newer aquaduct, situated further inland, must have been constructed when the sea was threatening and ultimately destroying the first one (REIFENBERG, 1951, pp. 27-28). It is most probable that the original aqueduct was constructed during Herod's reign or shortly after, and that it was situated at that time quite far inland. It is estimated that it was destroyed towards the middle of the first millennium A.D. and the sea, therefore, must have been temporarily 1-2 m higher than it is now.

P.S.

:"In a presentation to the American Physical Society, William (Bill) Collins of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and lead author of the modeling Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR5 said "Now, I am hedging a bet because, to be honest with you, if the hiatus is still going on as of the sixth IPCC report, that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door, because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus of 20 years are vanishingly small"

Ditto Tango 2 318 Jan 2015 1:55 p.m. PST

If one pushes the complaint button on the following, then one is enraged by it. If one is enraged by this, read it over again carefully and examine what you "believe". Then try and digest the fact that science is not about belief

Thank you in advance

Posting like the behaviour of a man possessed on this just like someone on TMP used to on a certain political figure.

Everyone go right ahead, it's been made into a religion and politics combined. Neither religion or politics are science, and here, like many misguided religious folks I see, I see people confusing faith with science. It's always depressing and at the same time amusing watching folks post on science based on Google degrees and political web sites betraying a lack of education in science. Reading this stuff is like reading creationist non-science.

Believe what you want to believe. This Christian believes in certain things that simply cannot be proven or dis-proven by science but also does not dismiss any PROPER science (not Google science).

Neither do I insist on labelling global warming as some plot to put us in the dark ages. Yes, we cannot progress without energy, yes, fossil fuels are the best alternative now and we can't escape that. What's wrong with working on making that more efficient and working towards a better energy source (other than the pension plans based on oil and gas)?

Finally, I've said the following before in PMs, but I'm no longer willing to communicate on this subject on PMs:

Oil is potential energy of accumulations of millions of years of dead organic matter. Coal was produced between 500 and 250 million years ago before there was bacteria that broke down dead trees, it will never be produced naturally again. Both oil and coal are the result of tens and hundreds of millions of years of dead things. Tens and hundreds of millions of years of storing of potential energy. Somehow, all the Google educated people want me to swallow the mantra that the past 200 years of industrialization, all based on the releasing of that potential energy is not going to have any kind of effect on the planet. Think of that. 200 years of release of millions of years of energy.

Yeah sure, volcanoes are release that much energy (where's the eye roll icon?). Even a Google or Bing degree will tell you no. Google and Bing and a childhood fascination with volcanoes tell everyone that volcanoes are a part of global life and have been forever.

In general, in other internet forums and in real life (read translate "posting" to "sermons" or "attending and challenging sermons"), when one posts again and again fully expecting to be challenged and responds in rage, it's fundamentalism. That kind of behaviour I just described is not science of any kind. It's fundamentalist extremist denial of the sort that is behind all sorts of unrest, including violent unrest, that we see wreaking havoc all over the world.
--
Tim

PS As I mentioned above, please don't anyone PM me ranting about stuff.

jpattern218 Jan 2015 8:07 p.m. PST

Well posted, Tim.

Terrement19 Jan 2015 10:52 a.m. PST

Before anyone else gets their knickers in a knot over this, I remind you that in addition to personal self control the editor has provided both stifle and ignore functionality to deal with this problem.

Please don't think I'm going to stop just because it upsets some folks. Too much fun.


"Well posted Tim"

Or not…

Posting like the behaviour of a man possessed on this just like someone on TMP used to on a certain political figure.

That would be me. I like to post. I like to argue. If politics were allowed, I'd STILL be posting about the abject failures and lawlessness of the political person in question. Just because I disagree with everything he stands for as well as his lawless actions, and fear for the price in lives and wealth his policies will cost the world doesn't mean I'm expressing rage. Simply stating the facts for other "true believers" who prefer to ignore the truth for their own political reasons.

I have yet to find anyone who represents the other side that can adequately respond, despite their "true believer" status to the two things below:

1. The models are continually unreliable and as such are no basis for economy destroying approaches to climate change.

2. There is yet to be any proposal that (allegedly) can "solve" the climatological problems the true believers want the world to adopt that has a chance of success given the need for and lack of universal support.

Not in the original discussion, but now I'll add:

3. There exists neither capacity nor technology today to meet today's energy demand.

4. Other learned minds have concluded that in the grand scheme of things, money for the betterment of earth could be much better spent on other things than AGW.
SZee link for one citation, look online for additional info on the man and his group.

What's wrong with working on making that more efficient and working towards a better energy source (other than the pension plans based on oil and gas)?

Nothing. Just stated that the capability does not exist at present, and nations are choosing to put their own self interest NOW over the "impact century down the road" especially if the fix to "century down the road requires buy in from all the major players at a minimum, several of which have already specifically said "NO!"

I also never claimed that climate change was a hoax (as definitively stated by a true believer here recently who ignored my suggestion that he re-read what I posted before continuing, and then he decided to double down on my claiming that it was a hoax. The "wallpapering" above is just my gentle way of pointing out the magnitude of the error of the gent in question who not only reads what I haven't posted, knows what I truly believe despite what I actually posted, and repeatedly puts false words in my mouth and then attacks me for what I didn't say.

Could I have made the point with a smaller post. Sure. But so what? It isn't "rage" it is "fun." That "rage" isn't against the question of climate change, it is against a specific individual too convinced in his own judgment that he refused to take my well offered advice.

As for continuing to post threads on the issue, as long as the true believers sit in their ivory towers and refuse to acknowledge that MAYBE there are things beside their strongly held beliefs to consider or reconsider before coming up with prescriptions for what we "MUST DO NOW TO SAVE THE EARTH!!!" "Ahhhhhhggggg!!!! Another tipping point!!!!" I'll continue to point out contrary views of scientists who disagree and illuminate the hypocrisy of the "do as I say not as I live crowd."

…all based on the releasing of that potential energy is not going to have any kind of effect on the planet.

Never said it doesn't. Indian scientists I quoted in the other thread:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cms

MUMBAI: Two of three scientists at a session on climate change and society at the Indian Science Congress on Tuesday felt fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated. Their presence at the conference was particularly significant in light of the current 'development-versus-environment' debates. "While I agree that glaciers are melting because of global warming, if this is because of man, then what was the reason for the melting of the glaciers in the Gondwana period long before man arrived on the planet?" asked Dhruv Sen Singh, Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, University of Lucknow.
"Climate change is a natural phenomenon while pollution is caused by man. We are definitely accelerating the process of climate change, but we cannot predict the rate or extent of climate change that can be attributed to man," Singh said. According to him, fears of climate change amount to propaganda and "unnecessarily cause panic". "The Cretaceous period 65 million years ago was the hottest in the history of the earth. Man was not around at the time," he added.

So, is their information to be discarded out of hand? Or the question raised about satellite vs surface temperatures? Are we seriously supposed to get excited because 2014 was 0.04 degrees hotter than the year before? Is that change even as large as the associated error? Yet we are bombarded with proclamations carried in the MSM about "hottest year on record!" when for all intent and purposes, the unpredicted flat line of temperatures continues with ever-changing attempts to explain it away (none convincing nor provable, as of yet).

That kind of behaviour I just described is not science of any kind. It's fundamentalist extremist denial of the sort that is behind all sorts of unrest, including violent unrest, that we see wreaking havoc all over the world.That kind of behaviour I just described is not science of any kind. It's fundamentalist extremist denial of the sort that is behind all sorts of unrest, including violent unrest, that we see wreaking havoc all over the world.

Seems to me that kind of single-mindedness is more what the folks who deny the possibility that they could possibly be wrong are better suited to that description than me. What's more lumping in my playing with folks who have a locked mind has NOTHING in common with folks who kill children, murder and rape, destroy places of worship, and claim they are doing God's work.

Form the true believers, I again offer up Feynman, who said repeatedly:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

The IPCC theories don't agree with the experiment. I guess they have more to consider, other variables to include, simplifying assumptions to re-examine. I think they in a number of cases need to consider this, also from him:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

link

So, if either of you two (Tim, jpattern2) or anyone else can intelligently respond to my four points above, please do so. I suspect you'll be as spectacularly unsuccessful as all of your predecessors.

JJ

Bowman02 Feb 2015 10:04 a.m. PST

Lets get back to the original articles presented:

I'm sorry I don't understand the point you are making. You write:

Oh Look! Something not considered properly in the climate models! Makes one wonder what else they have wrong, and why it was Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and MIT and NOT not the IPCC folks who found this.

The quote itself states that volcanic ash and aerosols actually cooling the earth has been known for a long time. I learned this over forty years ago in my geology and ecology courses.

In fact, this was studied in the 1815 Tambura eruption on Indonesia.This was the biggest volcanic eruption ever recorded and dropped the Earth's temperature by about 3 degrees. 1816 was the "year without a summer". However, once the ash settles and the sulphur dioxide falls (as acid rain)the temperature rebounds.

What was it that LL knows but the IPCC doesn't?

Also don't conflate aerosols and ash with gases. Volcanoes do spew out a lot of CO2, as your articles state, but no where near what the burning of fossil fuels do.

In another American Geophysical Union publication, volcanologist Terry Gerlach puts this in perspective. CO2 production from fossil fuel burning totals 30 GT (gigatonnes) per year. The amount of CO2 from volcanoes is 0.25 GT per year.

link

Gerlach's letter is amply referenced as seen in the PDF.

These arguments remind me of other so-called controversies in science. For example, within the field of evolutionary biology (in which I had some training) there is no controversy about the acceptance of evolution to explain diversity. The only "controversy" exists outside of the field amongst the laymen.

I will be the first to admit I know very little about climate science. And from the reading of all the threads about AGW on the TMP, I can confidently state that I am not alone.

Terrement09 Apr 2015 10:33 a.m. PST

The quote itself states that volcanic ash and aerosols actually cooling the earth has been known for a long time. I learned this over forty years ago in my geology and ecology courses

Yep. Re-read my post which links the IPCC report that categorically states that they do not include this in their analysis and projections.

Not arguing as a scientist – just as someone who can read. And just like I read the IPCC's statements, I'd add that their models, certified by no independent source, remains unable to accurately predict – and since the modeling that doesn't work is the basis for the predictions of what will happen in the future, it seems logical that GIGO. Predictions will be crap if the data put in is crap, as well as if the model is crap. Pretty clear that at least one, if not both of those cases exist.

Great War Ace09 Apr 2015 1:17 p.m. PST

If forced to conserve, I will rebel. If left to my own choice, I will recycle, conserve fuel and water, be as "green" in my private life as I feel that I should. Climate change will occur. Gouging me and everybody else in the free world, and sending the money to Brazil, et al. so that they will stop cutting down trees, etc. and etc. and etc., will never meet with my cooperation or approval. There. I have contributed to this AGW climate change thread too….

Bowman14 Apr 2015 4:59 a.m. PST

Not arguing as a scientist – just as someone who can read.

There is reading and then there is reading with comprehension due to relevant education and training.

Only on a Science board on a toy soldier forum are these concepts conflated.

Argument by unsubstantiated opinion.

Great War Ace15 Apr 2015 7:52 p.m. PST

I can tell when what I am reading is making sense. My eyes glaze over and my ears start picking up all manner of distracting noises when the words bounce off my brain and rattle back along the optic nerves without meaning. So your "reading with comprehension due to relevant education and training" is a rude assertion if you are trying to argue that someone doesn't understand when they say that they read and understand.

As far as I can tell, most if not all of what gets argued on the Net is "unsubstantiated opinion". That doesn't mean that opinions grew out of air or a lack thereof. People quote their sources and link to them all the time. That means that they usually read and understand them. But the authors of those sources are prone to "unsubstantiated opinion", even in their researches from bias. Educated people have biases. And agendas, usually the personal ones trumping the altruistic ones. Science will step aside when personal interest is in conflict with the science. And the researcher will probably not even acknowledge s/he is being biased because to do so will threaten their rice bowl….

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.