US to pull out of Paris accord.

[Buzzer]

I used to be a big believer in Global Warming, but I am not convinced of the impact by man. I read a lot on WattsUpWithThat, but it is a skeptical site, but some of the posters are very knowledgeable about a huge range of subjects. What I like is that they will engage in debate and not ban posters/delete comments which are pro global warming,

I'm not saying the the climate didn't warm through the 80's/90's, but there are major natural cycles (AMO PDO, Solar Cycles) etc. yet these are totally excluded. The models consistently overestimate warming.

I know I'm going to get slated, but I am not convinced. Oh, and maybe do a little research on where this mythical 97% stat comes from.

Some questions I have:
If the increase in CO2 is purely down to man, then as the bulk of emissions have come in the last 20-30 years, why is the rate of increase in the atmosphere not increasing?
If the level o CO2 is higher now than it was in the 80's, why was there a hiatus for 18 years (based on satellite figures and not land based thermometers). The hiatus was only broken by the recent El-Nino.

No doubt I'll be called all sorts names now lol

Yeah. I thought it was definitely a proven thing, I still think that it's real (that's a gut feel rather than based on any evidence that I've read) but I get increasingly frustrated when Climate Change champions say that it is settled science but then obfuscate on the details or play the man rather than the ball. Bill Nye is a classic example of someone who does this and often.

 

[nicko31]

I used to be a big believer in Global Warming, but I am not convinced of the impact by man. I read a lot on WattsUpWithThat, but it is a skeptical site, but some of the posters are very knowledgeable about a huge range of subjects. What I like is that they will engage in debate and not ban posters/delete comments which are pro global warming,

I'm not saying the the climate didn't warm through the 80's/90's, but there are major natural cycles (AMO PDO, Solar Cycles) etc. yet these are totally excluded. The models consistently overestimate warming.

I know I'm going to get slated, but I am not convinced. Oh, and maybe do a little research on where this mythical 97% stat comes from.

Some questions I have:
If the increase in CO2 is purely down to man, then as the bulk of emissions have come in the last 20-30 years, why is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere not accelerating? If the answer is it's natural, then how much of the increase is natural?
If the level of CO2 is higher now than it was in the 80's, why was there a hiatus for 18 years (based on satellite figures and not land based thermometers). The hiatus was only broken by the recent El-Nino.

No doubt I'll be called all sorts names now lol

I accept some have a different opinion on this subject and don't buy the science, but what is the bigger risk taking action or not taking action??

 

[Marlton & Hove Albion]

Does anyone realize that The Paris Accord was/is voluntary in terms of actions? No commitments, no fines, no sanctions, nothing. Does anyone realize that US politicians never approved it because Obama never sent it to Congress to vote as he knew it wouldn't get approved? Does anyone know that US Carbon Emissions are already heading lower not because nonsense, feel good, tree hugging deals like Paris Accord but because renewables, hybrid cars, higher MPG standards, less driving, cleaner forms of fuel for power generation (natural gas) and AMERICAN public conserving energy has all kicked in big time. Trump is not America, and America is not Trump.

 

[Seagull27]

Can someone point me to a good website where the science of climate change is properly discussed but in layman's terms? I've tried looking but both sides are quite entrenched and so there tends to be a lot of background noise with each side's arguments.

Quite simply, and I know this sounds as entrenched as you describe, but you'll struggle to find a website that discusses both sides fairly because denial of climate change just doesn't carry any weight. See something like this for how popular skeptic arguments are debunked: http://climatenexus.org/messaging-communication/basics/debunking-top-10-climate-change-myths

One of my favourite descriptions/infographics is this one:

http://www.popsci.com/xkcd-earth-average-temperature-timeline#page-3

Anyone who can read that and still support arguments like 'CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past' or 'it's down to natural cycles' just can't understand trends IMO. It's not the amounts or the change that are concerning, it's the rate of change.

Edit: one thing I would say is to ignore any arguments from either side who uses evidence based on how hot/cold one particular year, or even decade, has been. This is a long-term trend, and short-term cycles and effects have far more influence on immediate temperatures and weather events.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yeah. I thought it was definitely a proven thing, I still think that it's real (that's a gut feel rather than based on any evidence that I've read) but I get increasingly frustrated when Climate Change champions say that it is settled science but then obfuscate on the details or play the man rather than the ball. Bill Nye is a classic example of someone who does this and often.

Climate change is measurable in terms of looking at Co2 levels in ice cores over millions of years and demonstrating that our impact is independent of planetary changes in climate, amoung other measurable indicators. Where the controversy I think stems from is using these measurements to predict the future modelling of climate. When these models are wrong, people believe climate change is wrong, but actually it is the margin of error for the modelling. The exact impact of CO2 is hard to quantify because climate is clearly a chaotic system, but we know there is an impact and I find it hard to understand that being disputed.

 

[larus]

I accept some have a different opinion on this subject and don't buy the science, but what is the bigger risk taking action or not taking action??

I beleive that the different expected in global temperature from the implementation of the Paris Accord is 0.05c.

I'm sure others will have a different view which they are entitled to, but I hate it when the attacks are vitriolic just because someone has the audacity to question the 'accepted' doctrine.

 

[Seagull27]

I used to be a big believer in Global Warming, but I am not convinced of the impact by man. I read a lot on WattsUpWithThat, but it is a skeptical site, but some of the posters are very knowledgeable about a huge range of subjects. What I like is that they will engage in debate and not ban posters/delete comments which are pro global warming,

I'm not saying the the climate didn't warm through the 80's/90's, but there are major natural cycles (AMO PDO, Solar Cycles) etc. yet these are totally excluded. The models consistently overestimate warming.

I know I'm going to get slated, but I am not convinced. Oh, and maybe do a little research on where this mythical 97% stat comes from.

Some questions I have:
If the increase in CO2 is purely down to man, then as the bulk of emissions have come in the last 20-30 years, why is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere not accelerating? If the answer is it's natural, then how much of the increase is natural?
If the level of CO2 is higher now than it was in the 80's, why was there a hiatus for 18 years (based on satellite figures and not land based thermometers). The hiatus was only broken by the recent El-Nino.

No doubt I'll be called all sorts names now lol

1) It is accelerating: http://www.bitsofscience.org/shocki...carbon-feedbacks-tip-earth-past-404-ppm-6905/

And it is beyond doubt that it the increase is from anthropological sources - using isotope ratios in atmospheric carbon dioxide compared to other sources, we can tell that the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has come from fossil fuels.

2) As in the link in my previous post, the 'hiatus' used an exceptionally warm year as the starting point, so the 18 year period (which is a short period of time) appeared to be a hiatus. If you took a similar 18 year period 10 years earlier or later, the trend would look different. But again, this isn't about 18 year periods, it is about a 150-200 year period.

 

[larus]

Climate change is measurable in terms of looking at Co2 levels in ice cores over millions of years and demonstrating that our impact is independent of planetary changes in climate, amoung other measurable indicators. Where the controversy I think stems from is using these measurements to predict the future modelling of climate. When these models are wrong, people believe climate change is wrong, but actually it is the margin of error for the modelling. The exact impact of CO2 is hard to quantify because climate is clearly a chaotic system, but we know there is an impact and I find it hard to understand that being disputed.

When oceans warm, this reduced their ability to absorb CO2. The oceans have warmed over the end of the last century and CO2 levels have increased.

The principle of science is that you produce a theory and then you test your theory. If your theory is wrong, you maybe revise/reconsider and then test again. I find it odd that the models (which are just computer software which will be programmed with assumptions, rules and limitations) are consistently wrong by a large margin, yet are trotted out as though they are proof of Armageddon.

 

[larus]

1) It is accelerating: http://www.bitsofscience.org/shocki...carbon-feedbacks-tip-earth-past-404-ppm-6905/

And it is beyond doubt that it the increase is from anthropological sources - using isotope ratios in atmospheric carbon dioxide compared to other sources, we can tell that the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has come from fossil fuels.

2) As in the link in my previous post, the 'hiatus' used an exceptionally warm year as the starting point, so the 18 year period (which is a short period of time) appeared to be a hiatus. If you took a similar 18 year period 10 years earlier or later, the trend would look different. But again, this isn't about 18 year periods, it is about a 150-200 year period.

No, the hiatus was based on, how far back in time could you go from the current date with no discernible warming, so how can the start date of the current date be cherry picking? The hiatus was only broken by the big El-Nino.

 

[Surf's Up]

Trump refuses to accept that the scientists are right on climate change because he knows better!!!

 

[Seagull27]

No, the hiatus was based on, how far back in time could you go from the current date with no discernible warming, so how can the start date of the current date be cherry picking? The hiatus was only broken by the big El-Nino.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052017/global-warming-hiatus-debunked-climate-science

That's some 'hiatus'. But ignoring the recent rise, look at the high point in 1998. That was because of an El Nino event that produced an unusually warm year. The 'hiatus' was then presumed to have started then - but using this as a start date is misleading, as the year was unusually high. And now we're a few years on, we're seeing that the overall trend is still valid.

 

[larus]

View attachment 85940

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052017/global-warming-hiatus-debunked-climate-science

That's some 'hiatus'. But ignoring the recent rise, look at the high point in 1998. That was because of an El Nino event that produced an unusually warm year. The 'hiatus' was then presumed to have started then - but using this as a start date is misleading, as the year was unusually high. And now we're a few years on, we're seeing that the overall trend is still valid.

Using the UAH dataset - satellite records. Which, if you think about it should be more accurate than land based measurements. Why?, I hear you ask.
Well, 70% of the planet is ocean.
Of the remaining land mass, 9% is Antartica so not exactly a lot of thermometers there.
Then of course there's the caste swathes of the developing world with little or no accurate recording.
And, many of the recording stations will be in built up areas, so there get 'adjusted'. However, the adjustments always ale the past look colder. Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe, as in the famous words from the UEA (ClimateGate), "We need to hide the pause".

 

[Seagull27]

Using the UAH dataset - satellite records. Which, if you think about it should be more accurate than land based measurements. Why?, I hear you ask.
Well, 70% of the planet is ocean.
Of the remaining land mass, 9% is Antartica so not exactly a lot of thermometers there.
Then of course there's the caste swathes of the developing world with little or no accurate recording.
And, many of the recording stations will be in built up areas, so there get 'adjusted'. However, the adjustments always ale the past look colder. Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe, as in the famous words from the UEA (ClimateGate), "We need to hide the pause".

View attachment 85941

Perhaps it's just me, but looking at that graph it still looks like there is an overall trend of increasing temperature. I'm fairly sure if you whacked a trendline on it, it would show the same. Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make with this graph...

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I used to be a big believer in Global Warming, but I am not convinced of the impact by man. I read a lot on WattsUpWithThat, but it is a skeptical site, but some of the posters are very knowledgeable about a huge range of subjects. What I like is that they will engage in debate and not ban posters/delete comments which are pro global warming,

I'm not saying the the climate didn't warm through the 80's/90's, but there are major natural cycles (AMO PDO, Solar Cycles) etc. yet these are totally excluded. The models consistently overestimate warming.

I know I'm going to get slated, but I am not convinced. Oh, and maybe do a little research on where this mythical 97% stat comes from.

Some questions I have:
If the increase in CO2 is purely down to man, then as the bulk of emissions have come in the last 20-30 years, why is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere not accelerating? If the answer is it's natural, then how much of the increase is natural?
If the level of CO2 is higher now than it was in the 80's, why was there a hiatus for 18 years (based on satellite figures and not land based thermometers). The hiatus was only broken by the recent El-Nino.

No doubt I'll be called all sorts names now lol

Could have sworn I'd answered you on previous threads, but briefly:

If the increase in CO2 is purely down to man, then as the bulk of emissions have come in the last 20-30 years, why is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere not accelerating?

In part, because CO2 is absorbed by the sea and by plants, or broken down in other ways, so it doesn't all stay in the atmosphere, and in part you're wrong, one quick google revealed that levels of the gas increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/carbon-dioxide-emissions-greenhouse-gases

If the level of CO2 is higher now than it was in the 80's, why was there a hiatus for 18 years (based on satellite figures and not land based thermometers). The hiatus was only broken by the recent El-Nino.

There wasn't a hiatus, the levels continued to rise, it was just that sceptics fitted a trend line to a selected 18-years of data with an arbitrary start-point, that start-point being the 1997-98 El Nino which was associated with a massive spike in CO2 emissions (owing to the massive Asian peatland fires). Obviously the following years did not have that spike (no peatland fires) and hence the trend-line was not significant.

 

[Buzzer]

I really need to get up to speed on the issue of CO2 emissions but here's where I'm at and why I find it so confusing:

We read about the success of the 1987 Montreal Protocol to reduced CFCs and now the Ozone hole is closing and will be closed within decades. The Climate Change websites make a big deal about this and rightly so and I've seen more than one quote data that NASA has provided proving all this. However, NASA also recently produced data about the ice caps and how since 2012, they've been increasing. The aforementioned websites when talking about ice caps either don't acknowledge the NASA data as credible or don't mention it at all. They all believe the ice caps still to be melting and at an alarming rate and state this with some compelling evidence - tracking polar bear movements, David Attenborough showing examples of glacier regions photographed by Shackleton compared to now etc etc.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just genuinely confused. I've no idea whether the ice caps are melting or not. And in just trying to find out I get increasingly suspicious of vested interests on all sides. Hence my original ask about a site, a book or a person who can present the case for and against fairly.

 

[larus]

Perhaps it's just me, but looking at that graph it still looks like there is an overall trend of increasing temperature. I'm fairly sure if you whacked a trendline on it, it would show the same. Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make with this graph...

The point is that the end point of the chart shows a deviations of 0.2c from the average temperature from 1981 to 2010. And this is vey different to the chart which you posted.

This is from UAH who produce one of the 5 global temperature datasets. This and RSS are satellite not land based (and not subject to retrospective adjustments),

Also, why can't the models go backwards and produce data which matches the historical climate from the early 20th century?
Answer -because they are crap and have incorrect logic regarding CO2 and it's impact as a green-house gas (it's not that potent).

Another point, the effects of CO2 as a green-house gas are logarithmic; they weaken at higher concentrations.
Lastly, the planet is also greening too with the extra plant food (CO2) in the atmosphere which can only be good for feeding the planet.

 

[larus]

Could have sworn I'd answered you on previous threads, but briefly:

If the increase in CO2 is purely down to man, then as the bulk of emissions have come in the last 20-30 years, why is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere not accelerating?

In part, because CO2 is absorbed by the sea and by plants, or broken down in other ways, so it doesn't all stay in the atmosphere, and in part you're wrong, one quick google revealed that levels of the gas increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/carbon-dioxide-emissions-greenhouse-gases

If the level of CO2 is higher now than it was in the 80's, why was there a hiatus for 18 years (based on satellite figures and not land based thermometers). The hiatus was only broken by the recent El-Nino.

There wasn't a hiatus, the levels continued to rise, it was just that sceptics fitted a trend line to a selected 18-years of data with an arbitrary start-point, that start-point being the 1997-98 El Nino which was associated with a massive spike in CO2 emissions (owing to the massive Asian peatland fires). Obviously the following years did not have that spike (no peatland fires) and hence the trend-line was not significant.

You may have stated your position which you are entitled to hold. That doesn't mean to say it's correct. It's your opinion and the opinion of articles which you have read.

Regarding the hiatus, it was not choosing 1998 as a start point, the start position was the current date (and this of course was always moving forward), and the hiatus was how far back could they go from the CURRENT DAY with no discernible warming. It reached over 18 years.

I'll say that again. The START DATE was not in the past, it was always the CURRENT date going backwards. There was no cherry picking. I hope you can understand that process. Go from now backwards. So, in Jan 2012, the start point was Jan 2012. In Dec 2012, the start point was Dec 2012.

 

[Seagull27]

The point is that the end point of the chart shows a deviations of 0.2c from the average temperature from 1981 to 2010. And this is vey different to the chart which you posted.

This is from UAH who produce one of the 5 global temperature datasets. This and RSS are satellite not land based (and not subject to retrospective adjustments),

Also, why can't the models go backwards and produce data which matches the historical climate from the early 20th century?
Answer -because they are crap and have incorrect logic regarding CO2 and it's impact as a green-house gas (it's not that potent).

Another point, the effects of CO2 as a green-house gas are logarithmic; they weaken at higher concentrations.
Lastly, the planet is also greening too with the extra plant food (CO2) in the atmosphere which can only be good for feeding the planet.

Just because predictive models aren't accurate, it doesn't mean that past trends, with factual evidence, can be ignored. It's also a case of interpreting margin of error in the models - they may not get the numbers right, but general trends may be

On your point about the logarithmic increase; this article explains why it is still a problem far better than I can: https://skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html

And finally, whilst an increase in CO2 will temporarily increase plant growth, it is established that this effect diminishes as concentrations increase further, and other issues with the increase in CO2 will have more powerful detrimental effects.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

[pauli cee]

flippant comment ... no idea really...but google both and easy to find this type of headline.Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooling'.and "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal".

Russian scientists, hahahahaha, I bet they did

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Using the UAH dataset - satellite records. Which, if you think about it should be more accurate than land based measurements. Why?, I hear you ask.
Well, 70% of the planet is ocean.
Of the remaining land mass, 9% is Antartica so not exactly a lot of thermometers there.
Then of course there's the caste swathes of the developing world with little or no accurate recording.
And, many of the recording stations will be in built up areas, so there get 'adjusted'. However, the adjustments always ale the past look colder. Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe, as in the famous words from the UEA (ClimateGate), "We need to hide the pause".

Satellite-based thermometers measure temperature of the trophosphere. But trophosphere heating is only a small part of global warming. So is surface heating. Both these of these records - ground-based and satellite-based thermometers - are useful for measuring trends, even though they measure different things. But if we want to know where the heat goes, 90%+ of warming takes place in the oceans.