Climate change revisited

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4286
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 26th, 2019, 5:46 am

I wonder if we will ever have a scientist as a president. We have a real estate mogul/reality tv star, so stranger things have happened.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 562
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 26th, 2019, 9:53 am

The two links below pertain to current 2019 comments made by climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry. Compare Dr. Curry’s comments with those made by climate scientist Dr. Katharine Hayhoe as contained in the link posted by Bryan Hamilton.

It is viewing the divergence in positions by such climate scientists that has me remaining ‘on the fence’ with respect to the issue of climate change.

Richard F. Hoyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Climate Assessment: A crisis of epistemic overconfidence ... (Judith Curry, Jan. 2019)
[PDF] testimony - The House Committee on Natural Resources (Judith Curry, Feb. 2019)

(copy and past to Google to access links.)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 562
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 26th, 2019, 10:03 am

Below are abstracts of two current research papers contained in the journal ‘Nature Climate Change’. Note that one author claims Antarctic sea ice is declining while the other author mentions Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Such conflicting positions in published research leaves me with not knowing which position is likely to be flawed and which position is likely to be closer to reality.

This is yet another example as to why have not adopted a firm position on the issue of climate change.

Richard F. Hoyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article | Published: 03 December 2018 Natural variability of Southern Ocean convection as a driver of observed climate trends
Liping Zhang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1122-89271 ,2 , Thomas L. Delworth1 ,2 , William Cooke2 ,3 & […] Xiaosong Yang2 ,3 9, pages59–65 (2019) | Download Citation
Abstract
Observed Southern Ocean surface cooling and sea-ice expansion over the past several decades are inconsistent with many historical simulations from climate models. Here we show that natural multidecadal variability involving Southern Ocean convection may have contributed strongly to the observed temperature and sea-ice trends. These observed trends are consistent with a particular phase of natural variability of the Southern Ocean as derived from climate model simulations. Ensembles of simulations are conducted starting from differing phases of this variability. The observed spatial pattern of trends is reproduced in simulations that start from an active phase of Southern Ocean convection. Simulations starting from a neutral phase do not reproduce the observed changes, similarly to the multimodel mean results of CMIP5 models. The long timescales associated with this natural variability show potential for skilful decadal prediction.

======================================================================================
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets under 1.5 °C global warming
Frank Pattyn ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4805-56361 Nature Climate Changevolume 8, pages1053–1061 (2018) | Download Citation
Abstract
Even if anthropogenic warming were constrained to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will continue to lose mass this century, with rates similar to those observed over the past decade. However, nonlinear responses cannot be excluded, which may lead to larger rates of mass loss. Furthermore, large uncertainties in future projections still remain, pertaining to knowledge gaps in atmospheric (Greenland) and oceanic (Antarctica) forcing. On millennial timescales, both ice sheets have tipping points at or slightly above the 1.5–2.0 °C threshold; for Greenland, this may lead to irreversible mass loss due to the surface mass balance–elevation feedback, whereas for Antarctica, this could result in a collapse of major drainage basins due to ice-shelf weakening.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4286
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 26th, 2019, 12:19 pm

The thing that kind of bugs is stating repeatedly that you are 'On the fence" when clearly you are not.

As usual we have received the inside gears, hard-matter info, in this and tangential stuff from Jimi while you seem to be scouring google for every speck of contrarian material - or items of contention which is fine but its better to be honest about the obvious. Dont underestimate your audience.


My input is limited as I am aware of my own bias that humans pretty much f* up everything we 'like' on this magnificent, beautiful planet.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4286
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 26th, 2019, 1:08 pm

I think you have the right to say publicly that you dont believe the dominant consensus.

I have a different opinion about some things too that are widely accepted, things not as important as climate change though.

Im adding this because I know what its like to have a compelling mental pull in the opposite direction of the major view.

Jimi
Posts: 1831
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 26th, 2019, 1:53 pm

Below are abstracts of two current research papers contained in the journal ‘Nature Climate Change’. Note that one author claims Antarctic sea ice is declining while the other author mentions Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Such conflicting positions in published research leaves me with not knowing which position is likely to be flawed and which position is likely to be closer to reality.
Richard, look again. One discusses sea ice (East or West Antarctic? they differ...) and the other discusses ice sheets, which are terrestrial. What changes scientifically is the degree to which we understand local dynamics and mechanisms, and how much or little they contribute to 'the whole shebang". Speaking of which - also recall, it's global warming (the planet is heating up) or global climate change (few local climates will remain unchanged); however specific, local experiences will vary, with some areas getting more (e.g. much of Antarctica, as well as the NE & midwest USA) or less (e.g. SW USA, much of N Africa, most of Australia) precipitation. Most places are warming, but some regions - e.g., the poles - are heating much more than others. A pole is a pole, they're going to be cold in winter, but how warm they get in summer is changing drastically.

Also with the Zhang paper, note the upshot of the abstract - by starting at the right place or phase i.e., the active, not neutral phase - in the natural, background SOC cycle, the model predictions fit observed recent climate ("data") pretty well. Let me use their words:
These observed trends are consistent with a particular phase of natural variability of the Southern Ocean as derived from climate model simulations.
My interpretation of what they are saying is, the reason the observations weren't correctly predicted by the older model runs, is that the earlier modelers were "off" when it came to understanding what phase of the SOC we were in at the time. Zhang et al think they're figured it out. The fact that their paper was accepted for publication in a top-shelf journal suggests others agree with them.


It is viewing the divergence in positions by such climate scientists that has me remaining ‘on the fence’ with respect to the issue of climate change.
For every Curry there are about 49 (literally, about 49) other exceptionally-qualified people who disagree. All 50 have their reasons for believing what they believe; I don't think ANY of them are liars, or completely right, or completely wrong. It just amazes me that you're not swayed by the other 49, you'd rather go with the one. I mean, what are the consequences to life on Earth if the 49 are wrong and we take action as if they were right, versus the consequences if the one is wrong and we take action as if they were right? Or, the consequences if we took no action, because we can't agree that waiting to take action until we have 100% confidence is a very, very, very bad idea? I'm good with the 49, I say let's get a move on.


Jimi: I am not like that guy, or any other guy. I am me.
All people have opinions. I think more can be gained by listening rather that ridiculing.

By the way I have two research Biologists as my sons. One Ph.D, the other soon to be Ph.d.
I listen to them and others ...

I go back to my original thought. This thread encourages discussion.
If we can avoid the personal attacks, we might learn something (or at least enjoy the mental exercise).
Craig, I did not mean to ridicule or attack you, and I apologize for the hurt if that is how it seemed to you.

What are your boys' opinions on publicity, justification, "honesty" etc as you laid out yours? Would they disagree greatly with what I laid out in my response? Did you have your opinions before they embarked on their educations, or as a result of their experiences as they related them to you?

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 26th, 2019, 3:01 pm

Myth #2: The main requirement for faculty scientists to be successful is working hard at research!

Completely outdated and utterly wrong! In the past, academic institutions were centers for hard work with scholarship, scientific research, and advanced teaching. Today, everything in modern academia depends on dollars. Academic institutions have become business entities where profits are the chief goal; that transformation changes almost everything in the working atmosphere. Faculty scientists now are businessmen and businesswomen. The real purpose of hiring them is not to get more research done, but to acquire more research grant awards, since those dollars are business profits; this means that instead of working hard at research to advance knowledge and its applications, they are working to acquire more and bigger research grants. For science faculty, the number of publications produced in science journals now has limited importance, while the number of dollars in research grant awards is first and foremost. The truth of my statements is perversely emphasized by the increasing number of faculty scientists who cheat at their research in order to try to get more research grant dollars Dr Monsrs

Dr.Monsrs is a basic scientist with several doctoral degrees, including a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. He loves doing laboratory research and has performed hands-on experimental studies in biomedical science during over 35 years as a member of the faculty at 3 academic institutions and one government laboratory center in the USA.
It's a shame too few scientists have the courage and integrity to speak out about what really goes on in their chosen profession, and what measures need to be taken to at least try and curve the steady decline in credibility.

Ernie Eison

craigb
Posts: 599
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by craigb » April 26th, 2019, 7:36 pm

Jimi: Thank you nuff' said.
Unfortunately my sons are busy trying to put food on the table, getting married and just trying to get someplace they want to be.
I do spend a week or so each year with each of them in the field when our schedules work out. They are 31 year old twins.
I learn about their current opinions of research while hiking and road cruising in AZ. One is in Oklahoma and the other Thailand.
They are not definite about global warming, but do see research on climate change. They do not jump on band wagons.
Scientific method and all. There is still much research to be done to form conclusions.

We are told to think "globally" yet are given specific research repeated in a few specific areas of the globe.
Too many questions unanswered as yet (in my opinion, not theirs).

Let's keep plowing through :mrgreen:

craigb
Posts: 599
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by craigb » April 27th, 2019, 9:32 am

I found this today... the topic broken down by one person.
A brief 5 minute testimony...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 562
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 27th, 2019, 6:56 pm

Craig,
Welcome on board and I see you are a teacher. Before retiring in 1991, my last profession was as a secondary school science teacher.

I have never been the best at written communications. So when some individuals have expressed their opinion that they know which side of the climate debate I have taken, I am unsure if the problem is my lack of communication skills, individuals haven’t really reviewed what I have written, have misinterpreted what I have written, or they are prone to reaching a flawed position based on subjective feelings or whatever.

In past posts, I have indicated that the large majority of links support the position that humans are the primary cause of global warming / climate change. So I have tried to find, and identify links dealing with information and research that presents the other side. I have been pretty much overwhelmed by the volume of information.

Jimi was correct in that in reviewing the different links I had sent myself, I mixed apples with oranges. That is, sea ice and land ice in Antarctica are two different issues.

With respect to the issue of ice in Antarctica, here are some (not all) of the entries I searched in Google. ‘Antarctic sea ice’, ‘Publications on Antarctic sea ice’, ‘Is Antarctic sea ice decreasing or increasing?’ ‘Antarctic continent ice shield’, ‘Publication on Antarctic continent ice shield’, ‘Is the Antarctic continent ice shield decreasing or increasing?’

A good number of links that show up are repeats yet each entry produces different links as well. And as has been the case with my other searches involving various aspects of climate change, there exists conflicting information.

One of the problems is that many links or blogs are written second hand by journalists and others and not by the scientists that published their findings. Thus you often get slanted accounts that reflect the bias or position of the writer. I have found a few, very few accounts that were written in an impartial and objective manner.

I have never been impressed by, nor swayed by the opinions of a majority as too frequently such positions have been in error. In a prior thread that was removed by the administrator, I believe I referred to a few instances in which the consensus of scientific opinion was in error. I also mentioned that just about all herpetologists in the past, both professional and amateur, have considered the species I study, the Rubber Boa, to be rare. And all of them have been totally wrong.

So with respect to the issue of’ consensus’, scientific inquiry should never boil down to a ‘popularity contest’, Instead, it should only deal with the application of basic principles, examination of valid evidence, and results of scientific inquiry in published format.

As for the link you posted of a woman testifying, my hearing is so poor (aircraft engine noise when a pilot in the USAF), that I really couldn’t make out most of what was said. I heard Georgia Tech mentioned so am I correct the video was that of Dr. Judith Curry? At any rate, as mentioned
previously, I will wait to see what transpires with the accumulation of more evidence and the results of additional research.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4286
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 27th, 2019, 9:14 pm

TBH, I'm more interested in the psychological ecology on this loamy rich and fecund thread, than Climate Change - The Subject.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4286
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 28th, 2019, 5:15 am

When people become zombified in repetition, and blithe in self awareness something else in going on and I think its time to head out to healthier places.

Have fun

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4286
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 28th, 2019, 4:51 pm

[quote
For every Curry there are about 49 (literally, about 49) other exceptionally-qualified people who disagree. All 50 have their reasons for believing what they believe; I don't think ANY of them are liars, or completely right, or completely wrong. It just amazes me that you're not swayed by the other 49, you'd rather go with the one. I mean, what are the consequences to life on Earth if the 49 are wrong and we take action as if they were right, versus the consequences if the one is wrong and we take action as if they were right? Or, the consequences if we took no action, because we can't agree that waiting to take action until we have 100% confidence is a very, very, very bad idea? I'm good with the 49, I say let's get a move on.




^^The above view rings out as the most responsible position, not as a valiant to align with a political agenda that meshes with other personal desires and goals. (please pardon the mishap of quote frame)


Ah the unselfish thing.. sounds like work and behavior modification. what a drag huh.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 562
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 29th, 2019, 9:42 am

Craig B. provided a video of Dr. Judith Curry’s testimony before a Congressional committee. I played the video twice more and despite my extremely poor hearing, I was able to make out a fair amount of her testimony. At one point, she mentions an article published about her in Scientific American labeling her as a ‘climate heretic’.

I then entered the following in Google: “Scientific American climate heretic”.

A number of link then appear. I urge everyone to read the narrative by Dr. Curry in the following link dated Dec. 5, 2016.
'Climate Heretic: to be or not to be? | Climate Etc.'

Within her narrative, Dr. Curry quotes two scientists. The information in those two accounts should prove informative.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4286
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 29th, 2019, 12:29 pm

Climate etc, read specious, with broad inflammatory strokes that referred to "It" (the scientific "establishment" shying away from names or specifics, unconfidently.

It wasn't convincing enough because of that. Sample reader here. I dont see much other commentary so perhaps you should heed what ya got as far as impressions go.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4286
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 29th, 2019, 12:39 pm

It did make me wonder if "Carbon Tax" is an influential feature in some peoples viewpoint selections.

Post Reply