Climate change revisited

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4295
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

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: 569
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: 569
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: 4295
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

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: 4295
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

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: 1843
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: 611
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: 611
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: 569
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: 4295
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

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: 4295
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

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: 4295
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

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: 569
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: 4295
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

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: 4295
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

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.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 569
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » July 13th, 2019, 9:20 am

In a search, I entered, ‘Finnish study on climate change’. I have copied one of the links below. It can be noted that two independent studies, one in Finland and the other in Japan, seem to have come up with the same results and conclusions.

According to the reporter in this link, these studies are at complete odds with the UN IPCC position that humans have caused the current global warming.

It now remains to be seen if further research will tend to support these two studies or they too may not be the final word on the issue of climate change.

"Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't"

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 569
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » July 13th, 2019, 4:22 pm

The link copied below produced the paper by the Finnish scientists. (see abstract) I have not been able to find a link to the Japanese paper that as I understand, it produced similar results. These results support the positions (and some published research) taken by a fair number of scientists that have been skeptical and critical of the UN’s IPCC position that humans have been the major cause of global warming / climate change.

Either the latest results by the climate scientist from Finland and Japan are real and verifiable or perhaps others will find flaws. I have the sense that these latest results could possibly be the beginning of the end for the UN's IPCC models.

Richard F. Hoyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Paper–NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT

J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

Jimi
Posts: 1843
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » July 15th, 2019, 9:55 am

Sorry Richard, your attempt to provide a link didn't work. See the toolbar icon that looks (to me...) like a pair of dice. Between the "picture" and the "drop of liquid" icons. You want to insert a URL.

Here's a link:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... BljE9VZo-c

Its title:
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
Its summary (emphasis mine - wow, really, the ocean puked up all that CO2? Talk about blaming the victim. Wow, a new low.):
DETAILS
Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.
KEY TAKE AWAY
Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature.
So - no data, no methods, and no mechanism.
These results support the positions
No, they in fact do not.

As for the Japanese paper, here's a link:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 569
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » July 15th, 2019, 10:35 am

The problem with making searches through Google, Norton Safe Search, etc., is that the information is second hand. That is, it has been ‘filtered’ through, and includes interpretations of the writer.

In trying to find a reference to the claim that a recent Japanese study produced similar result to the Finnish study, I was not successful. But I did find a site (“Skeptical Science”) that provides a different perspective. (Copied below). This is the reason I have urged everyone to examine all sides of issues before adopting a firm position one way or the other.

At the bottom it mentions “Read more...” I suggest that should be done. But here again, you need to keep in mind that the author, Scott Johnson, only has presented one side.

Richard F. Hoyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From “Skeptical Science”
Debunk of the Week...
Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming
CLAIM: "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice... During the last hundred years the temperature is increased [sic] about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.

As the scientists who examined this claim explained, the document relies on circular reasoning to claim that cloud cover and relative humidity have caused the change in global temperature, and ignores many additional factors affecting global temperature—including aerosol pollution, volcanic eruptions, and natural ocean oscillations. The published, peer-reviewed scientific research on this topic clearly shows that human activities are responsible for climate change.

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming, Claims Review Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, July 12, 2019


Read more...

AEthelred
Posts: 2
Joined: July 16th, 2019, 9:56 am

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by AEthelred » July 18th, 2019, 7:34 am

It has not been getting warmer where I live.The last two years have been colder if anything.last fall we had snow on October and we had snow in May this spring.not usual for Massachusetts

Jimi
Posts: 1843
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » July 19th, 2019, 8:19 am

It has not been getting warmer where I live.
Sorry bud. Data say otherwise, for Boston this spring (I didn't look at more periods - have a look for yourself and come back & try to convince me the pattern falls apart? Or, change your beliefs based on the acquisition of additional knowledge?).

Mean max and min temps, daily, are 1.4F above 30-yr average:
https://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=box

...THE BOSTON MA CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE SEASON...
...FROM 3/1/2019 TO 5/31/2019...

CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1981 TO 2010
CLIMATE RECORD PERIOD 1872 TO 2019

WEATHER OBSERVED NORMAL DEPART LAST YEAR`S
VALUE DATE(S) VALUE FROM VALUE DATE(S)
NORMAL
................................................................
TEMPERATURE (F)
RECORD
HIGH 97 05/26/1880
LOW -8 03/06/1872
HIGHEST 89 05/26
LOWEST 15 03/07
AVG. MAXIMUM 57.1 55.7 1.4
AVG. MINIMUM 41.9 40.5 1.4

MEAN 49.5 48.1 1.4
DAYS MAX >= 90 0 0.4 -0.4
DAYS MAX <= 32 3 1.9 1.1
DAYS MIN <= 32 18 17.4 0.6
DAYS MIN <= 0 0 0.0 0.0



Also - note, it's climate change, not only warming. The big story in the NE is increased frequency of extreme precip events, as well as an increase in seasonal and annual totals. You guys are getting WET.

Post Reply