Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[Guest TrueMetis]

Just bringing it up degrades the debate.

Who cares if a hypothesis was advanced - that just means a paper was published.

There were 7 papers on cooling published, for comparison during the same time period 40+ papers supporting global warming were published.

How can one crop benefit and not others?? Makes no sense. Maybe it is BlueBlood's farming techniques?? Or the type of GM seed he is forced to grow?? There are many factors than just more CO2 in the air.

I was talking location not specific crop, as blueblood is apparently growing multiple crops.

yes and likely different behaviours which could make a difference...human wiping out the giant bison and not the smaller bison seems unlikely, I would think the smaller bison is dangerous enough a challenge...

A "small" bison is quite dangerous which is why I agree with you on mammoth hunting being small scale. Anyone here who thinks that Mammoths were a large part of early hunters diets need to realize this is several tons of tusks and muscle with 2 inches of blubber making it harder to kill, and if elephants are any sort of stand in they will defend each other and if wounded will become infinitely more dangerous. You want to hunt that? Or do you want to go kill a deer? If Mammoths were killed it would have been few and far between, and in all likelyhood using a trap method on a migratory path.

[Saipan]

because we all know saipan...what he states and what implied are the same...

We all do. Even saipan does.

[jbg]

generalizations... depending on the board software; for example, your scenario might be detected to identify multiple accounts from the same machine/address - the capability extends to allows the administrators to contact the person(s) involved, confirm circumstances and, effectively, allow customized privileges for recognized multiple registrants.

So for example would you expect Greg or Charles Anthony to give me a call to verify that the other poster is "JBG Jr." (actually analogous name would be JRG)?

[Saipan]

There are many scientists who are denying climate change.

Who in the right mind would deny climate change? Climate is always changing, always was and always will. Like the weather, it's what it does best.

If it didn't change we would live in perpetual ice age.

[jbg]

sorry... couldn't pass this one up - I won't bother to link your past posts where you reference hood enclosure or small greenhouse type growing scenarios/studies as conclusive proof of "this or that"... damn! Look at them tamatees grow!!!

whaaa! Al Gore..... he's fat!!!!!

So..

It's the "duck and dodge"?

Another Grade 4 level discussion?

[jbg]

Read the bolded text in my quote. It is a natural weather phenomena and there is no evidence of a trend in blocking events.

Try this:

http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2010/08/25/blocked-up-weather/

OMG - the best models predict that these blocking events are REDUCED by global warming! We can't have that. It MUST be wrong!.

so... based on a draft assessment, one soliciting for comments... an unpublished work/paper, you're doubling down on "blockage"? Of course you are?

Tim, generally I agree with you but you overstate the case.

Blocking and La Niña are two separate phenomena related to the events described in that article. That article conflates them and makes a hash of things. Let me explain.

An "unblocked" pattern features a strong counterclockwise jet stream vortex around the North Pole which pens the cold air way up north, allowing little to filter south. This causes mild winters in the U.S. and southern Canada. Blocking causes buckling in that vortex, creating deep troughs and ridges. Those respectively allow the cold air to surge southward in sometimes bitter arctic outbreaks, and, depending on placement, holds the cold air in place, allowing the U.S. Northeast and the Toronto/Montreal area to get snow in spite of storms originating further south. Without blocking the cold air is literally pushed away, often causing rapid turnover to rain. If the "block" is centered around southern Greenland the U.S. Northeast often gets impressive snow and cold. It can also, in the "ridgy" areas promote great heat waves. This is when Muscva approaches 37C, as it did last summer.

La Niña also favors U.S. Northeast heat. More to the point it favors the flooding that bedeviled Pakistan, and favors a souped-up cyclone season over the Indian Subcontinent and vigorous monsoon rains. In fact the years of cyclones in that area reads like a La Niña hit parade,since the same forces that generates cold water off the South American Pacific coast to the dateline will create bathlike warmth in the waters near Indonesia and the Indian Subcontinent. This is rich cyclone fuel. The opposite pattern, El Niño, generate droughts and forest fires in Indonesia and often causes India's monsoon to fail.

All of the above are age-old cycles having nothing to do with AGW.

Edited December 11, 2010 by jbg

[waldo]

Interesting, Waldo.

But what happens if, say, my wife decides she wants to become an MLW poster, and/or my 14 year old son? Far more likely in his case.

How would "administrative tools" deal with that contingency?

And yes, I did join in Lukin's thoughts but I'm not vociferous on the issue.

generalizations... depending on the board software; for example, your scenario might be detected to identify multiple accounts from the same machine/address - the capability extends to allows the administrators to contact the person(s) involved, confirm circumstances and, effectively, allow customized privileges for recognized multiple registrants.

So for example would you expect Greg or Charles Anthony to give me a call to verify that the other poster is "JBG Jr." (actually analogous name would be JRG)?

why don't you take your stated hypothetical and extend upon my stated generalization... and ask them - hey? If you recall wyly's comment in reply, most boards would simply can your ass and forgetaboutit. As I said/inferred, typically, discussion forum software in IP.Board's category, would allow board administration to setup, "customized privileges for recognized multiple registrants"... if they so chose to do so. Again, generalizing... if the board software in question supported the feature/capability... if the board administrators chose to utilize the feature... ask Greg/Charles if you're so concerned/interested.

[waldo]

***** gentle reminder bump #1 *****

Humans cause warming. That's what the science says.

Also trite and not helpful. The science says humans affect the climate in a many ways and at different scales (local, continental and global). The net human effect appears to be about about 0.3-0.5 degC increase in GMST since 1800 (50-75% of the increase since 1950), however, this nothing but a best guess based on computer modelling studies. The other 0.5-0.7degC of warming in 1800 was caused by natural factors.

Not sure where you got your numbers from, but isn't it odd that humans and some unknown factor starting affecting the earth at the same time?

My numbers are guesses based on the IPCC statement:

that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid twentieth century is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

It was unhelpful because you left out the context and uncertainty which meant your statement implied things that are not true. Most importantly, you left out the fact that 50% or more of the warming since 1800 is purely natural and that the attribution to humans is a hypothetical exercise which could easily turn out to be wrong because of flaws in the computer models.

I know it is a pain but reducing complex science to slogans hinders communication because the 'slogans' are invariably wrong. This is a criticism that applies to both sides.

interesting... you repeatedly denigrate the IPCC and call down others for referencing "the IPCC bible", yet you continue to reference it for your own purposes... repeatedly reference it. In any case, you advise your numbers are, as you state, "guesses", drawing substantiation from a simple IPCC likelihood probability statement... care to expound on your substantiation - obviously, there's certainly nothing in that particular likelihood probability statement, as quoted, that would lend itself to your numbers (guesses, or otherwise). Your specificity would help here - hey?

notwithstanding, of course, it's a bit unclear how you acknowledge the 0.7°C rise (since 1800) and then proceed to split it as 0.3-0.5°C anthropogenic versus 0.5-0.7°C natural... while at the same time dropping the "TimG factoid" that, "50% or more of the warming since 1800 is purely natural". TimG numbers should really support a TimG factoid - hey?

of course, you shift into high-gear with a statement about anthropogenic attribution being subject to computer model flaws. Would you care to describe what variability you're attributing the natural warming to... more pointedly, what natural aspects and associated radiative forcing are you using to substantiate your number guesses? Are you maintaining radiative forcing is purely based upon computer models?

[wyly]

why don't you take your stated hypothetical and extend upon my stated generalization... and ask them - hey? If you recall wyly's comment in reply, most boards would simply can your ass and forgetaboutit. As I said/inferred, typically, discussion forum software in IP.Board's category, would allow board administration to setup, "customized privileges for recognized multiple registrants"... if they so chose to do so. Again, generalizing... if the board software in question supported the feature/capability... if the board administrators chose to utilize the feature... ask Greg/Charles if you're so concerned/interested.

better yet he, lukin and shady can test the system by setting up alternate identities...

Edited December 11, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

A good example and well said. It's hard to find another "debate is over" scientific theory that parallels the AGW one that says "in the absence of any other explanation, warming MUST be caused by CO2 and most of the warming is caused by human produced CO2".

of course, to a denier like yourself... you simply choose to deny the explanations and evidence that support AGW. As you are repeatedly challenged to do, don't hesitate to come forward and present a case for the natural variations that can, alternatively, account for the warming. I believe your last attempt's thread started off with some farcical premise that the "Sun was making a comeback" in your trumped up belief there actually is a scientific debate beyond and separate from consensus science.

on edit: sp

Edited December 11, 2010 by waldo

[waldo]

why don't you take your stated hypothetical and extend upon my stated generalization... and ask them - hey? If you recall wyly's comment in reply, most boards would simply can your ass and forgetaboutit. As I said/inferred, typically, discussion forum software in IP.Board's category, would allow board administration to setup, "customized privileges for recognized multiple registrants"... if they so chose to do so. Again, generalizing... if the board software in question supported the feature/capability... if the board administrators chose to utilize the feature... ask Greg/Charles if you're so concerned/interested.

better yet he, lukin and shady can test the system by setting up alternate identities...

yes, absolutely... one can only hope MLW board administration would have a zero-tolerance policy and not bother with the confirmation aspect I generalized upon.

[waldo]

no - I believe it is your desperation shining through. Neither of your sources are definitive scientific analysis... they are preliminary assessments. Your first linked reference doesn't even mention the Pakistan monsoon/flooding... your second linked reference suggests, "And the heaviest monsoon downpours in Pakistan’s history, causing floods that have displaced more than 10 million people, may be due in part to this same blocking event.

on the other hand, I provided an alternative, prefaced with the scientists acknowledgment that scientific research/analysis of this past summer's record extreme events is required... you simply can't/won't accept Trenberth's plausible alternative.

further to your accusatory rant against "alarmists" and your desperate claim that a simple and well recognized "weather blocking" phenomena is the definitive "cause" of this summer's recent extreme weather events in Russia & Pakistan... a quote from your own provided link:

Also, the global climate models used for simulating continued global warming generally don’t have high enough of resolution to simulate blocking events realistically, Barriopedro says. In these models, there are fewer blocking events, and they’re shorter, than in real life. “There haven’t been too many studies on blocking and climate change because of this problem,” he adds.

The preliminary results suggest that there may be little change, or perhaps a small drop in blocking events in a warmer world.

However, blocking events could have stronger effects. “In a warmer world, the consequence of [summer blocking] is much stronger,” because the higher average temperatures raise the bar.

so... it's a significant area of ongoing study, particularly in terms of climate model refinements. For example, the U.S. Midwest floods were particularly severe in themselves this past 2010 summer... there is an active ongoing collaboration between Missouri and Russian scientists:

Whether it’s never-ending heat waves or winter storms, atmospheric blocking can have a significant impact on local agriculture, business and the environment. Although these stagnant weather patterns are often difficult to predict, University of Missouri researchers are now studying whether increasing planet temperatures and carbon dioxide levels could lead to atmospheric blocking and when this blocking might occur, leading to more accurate forecasts.

“In this research, we’re trying to see if increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the resulting atmospheric warming will affect the onset and duration of future blocking events,” said Tony Lupo, professor and chair of the atmospheric science department at the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. “We’re hoping that the research will add cues that could help fellow forecasters better predict blocking and warn people in cases of long-lasting, severe weather.”

Atmospheric blocking occurs between 20-40 times each year and usually lasts between 8-11 days, Lupo said. Although they are one of the rarest weather events, blocking can trigger dangerous conditions, such as a 2003 European heat wave that caused 40,000 deaths. Blocking usually results when a powerful, high-pressure area gets stuck in one place and, because they cover a large area, fronts behind them are blocked. Lupo believes that heat sources, such as radiation, condensation, and surface heating and cooling, have a significant role in a blocking’s onset and duration. Therefore, planetary warming could increase the frequency and impact of atmospheric blocking.

“It is anticipated that in a warmer world, blocking events will be more numerous, weaker and longer-lived,” Lupo said. “This could result in an environment with more storms. We also anticipate the variability of weather patterns will change dramatically over some parts of the world, such as North America, Europe and Asia, but not in others.”

Lupo, in collaboration with Russian researchers from the Russian Academy of Sciences, will simulate atmospheric blocking using computer models that mirror known blocking events, then introduce differing carbon dioxide environments into the models to study how the dynamics of blocking events are changed by increased atmospheric temperatures. The project is funded by the US Civilian Research and Development Foundation – one of only 16 grants awarded by the group this year. He is partnering with Russian meteorologists whose research is being supported by the Russian Federation for Basic Research.

bottom line is your "definitive" substantiation isn't... definitive. Notwithstanding, of course, the alternate plausible explanation offered in the link I provided, one offering a more direct relationship between this past summer's extreme events and AGW - but, equally one requiring additional study, as acknowledged by the scientist (Trenberth) fronting the alternative causal link.

IOW - you have no evidence supporting the link between AGW and the heatwave. All you have is off the cuff speculation by a alarmist scientist with a vested interest in promoting the AGW scare. In fact, Trenberth's unsubstantiated speculations about hurricane-AGW links led to the resignation frpom the IPCC of respected hurricane scientist Chris Landsea. Trenberth is not a credible source when it comes to such things.

and where is your... evidence? Is there a particular reason you chose not to reply to my later updated post (as quoted here in its entirety)? Let's be clear here - I made no personal claims linking this past summer's extreme Russian heat wave and Pakistani floods to AGW. My linking the Trenberth alternative supposition, one I prefaced with Trenberth's own admission of the need for supporting study, was to counter your mouth-frothing rant against some collective "alarmist" link being made between AGW and these 2 respective extreme events. Which is all Trenberth stated - a possible link that needs study... which, again, is what I highlighted and reinforced.

of course, in your mouth-froth best, your puffed-up chest claims of a definitive association to a "simple" weather blocking event, has been shown as anything but... definitive. Oh my! How alarmist of you!!!

You need a to learn some logic. I objected to alarmists running around claiming that weather events like the Russian heatwave were evidence of global warming. That objection does not require me to prove that they weren't connected - all I need to do is show that science does not support such a claim. I have done that by providing explanations that require no link. All you have done is provide 'alternative explanations that suggest their might be link'. Not good enough to justify the false claims that are being made.

bloody hell... perhaps it's time to resurrect the "Intellectual Dishonesty" thread over your blatant bullshit. Your two provided links, in no possible way, provide you with definitive positioning to suggest, as you have now repeatedly done, that you've, "shown that science does not support such a claim".

Again:

Neither of your sources are definitive scientific analysis... they are preliminary assessments. Your first linked reference doesn't even mention the Pakistan monsoon/flooding... your second linked reference suggests, "And the heaviest monsoon downpours in Pakistan’s history, causing floods that have displaced more than 10 million people,

may be due in part

to this same blocking event.

Again:

... a quote from your own provided link:

Also, the global climate models used for simulating continued global warming generally don’t have high enough of resolution to simulate blocking events realistically, Barriopedro says. In these models, there are fewer blocking events, and they’re shorter, than in real life. “There haven’t been too many studies on blocking and climate change because of this problem,” he adds.

The preliminary results suggest that there may be little change, or perhaps a small drop in blocking events in a warmer world.

However, blocking events could have stronger effects. “In a warmer world, the consequence of [summer blocking] is much stronger,” because the higher average temperatures raise the bar.

[waldo]

separated out, so as not to get lost in the mix... again, emphasis on the scientific founded linkage between AGW and the increased intensity of extreme events (Hurricanes / Cyclones). Side bonus should Timmay choose to take the "Pielke bait".

...respected hurricane scientist Chris Landsea.

we've touched upon the Landsea prima-donna act previously. Wait... what's this... has Landsea come back into the fold? (and as a bonus, he's a co-author with K. Emanuel... re: TrueMetis earlier linked reference to an earlier 2005 Emanuel paper).

Tropical cyclones and climate change - Nature Geoscience(2010)

Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.

would you like... more?

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones - Nature (2008)

Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere1, 2, 3, 4. Over the rest of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity are less obvious, owing to the unreliability and incompleteness of the observational record and to a restricted focus, in previous trend analyses, on changes in average intensity. Here we overcome these two limitations by examining trends in the upper quantiles of per-cyclone maximum wind speeds (that is, the maximum intensities that cyclones achieve during their lifetimes), estimated from homogeneous data derived from an archive of satellite records. We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 plusminus 0.09 m s-1 yr-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind.

the preceding being examples of where the science is in terms of hurricane intensity being linked to AGW climate change... not frequency... intensity. Of course, the next-step usual dodge here is for denier lappers like yourself to run to Pielke Jr. and beak-off about "economics". Like you did just a short while back.

Let's have some fun - hey... summarize your go-to Pielke claim(s) - give me/us a target - hey? Honest, I'm not setting you up... trust me! (I'll be gone for the rest of the day... so no need for you to hurry).

[waldo]

Come one. Your ignoring important nuances again and doing exactly what you criticize others for. Saipan did not claim that ALL scientists agreed with 'coming ice age' theory. All he did was state the fact that in the 1970s there was a scientific hypothesis advanced where human pollution was bringing on a new ice age. This is an indisputable fact. It only becomes a problematic opinion if someone claims there was a 'scientific consensus' backing that hypothesis.

more 70's cooling myth crapola - hey? A media perpetuation of a trumped up scientific hypothesis that had no/little recognition within consensus science... if needs be, to address another TimG factoid, I will certainly re-link to that published meta study that actually cataloged the published science of the 70's period.

[jbg]

bloody hell... perhaps it's time to resurrect the "Intellectual Dishonesty" thread over your blatant bullshit. Your two provided links, in no possible way, provide you with definitive positioning to suggest, as you have now repeatedly done, that you've, "shown that science does not support such a claim".

More personal attacks eh?

[waldo]

How in the world does this not apply to the scientists you cite to debunk it?

Are they a different breed of scientists, somehow immune to the failings you point out?

Of course not. They are just as biased. But since they are fewer in number they are not able to counter the biases of the majority. This means the peer reviewed literature is not an objective record of scientific truth but a reflection of the basis of the majority of scientists. Over time, these biases become self-re-enforcing because people proposing ideas that dispute decades of 'accepted truths' have an extremely large barrier to overcome. A barrier which is insurmountable in field like climate science with no ability to do real world experiment and powerful vested interests.

Bottom line: I don't believe that climate science is a field that is able to correct itself within timeframes that matter to us (i.e. waiting for generational change is too long). This means I cannot place much trust in its claims even if others have not explicitly shown they are wrong.

that's right... we're bordering on the prior level of conspiratorial splendor that Riverwind used to ply... hey, TimG? (shorter TimG: "group think, squawk - group think, squawk").

(note: apparently TimG's "group think" ready go-to does not extend to denialTown and affiliates)

[waldo]

More personal attacks eh?

self moderating is good... perhaps you should apply to yourself - hey?

[Shady]

self moderating is good... perhaps you should apply to yourself - hey?

Hey it's Waldo again! Hey buddy, are you still a big supporter of Chinese clean coal?

[jbg]

self moderating is good... perhaps you should apply to yourself - hey?

My insults are nowhere near as constant or vicious as yours.

[jbg]

Hey it's Waldo again! Hey buddy, are you still a big supporter of Chinese clean coal?

China is a clean country environmentally. And hey, even Guns 'N Roses believed in Chinese Democracy so much it took them over 13 years to make it an album.

[waldo]

More personal attacks eh?

self moderating is good... perhaps you should apply to yourself - hey?

My insults are nowhere near as constant or vicious as yours.

aside from your obvious super-sensitivities, your inability to properly ascertain, your self-serving and self-expressed monitoring, evaluation and measuring scales, and your obvious frustration with being an also-ran... are you asking for instructive help... to be all you can be?

[Saipan]

...your obvious.... your inability....... your self-serving..... and your obvious..... you asking.... you can be?

Edited December 11, 2010 by Saipan

[waldo]

baby steps... just where is the biggest concentration of wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from? Of course, the current level of emission reductions stands at roughly 15% below 1990 levels by 2020... which presumes to keep global temperature rise to the 'targeted' 2°C level. The absence of a required additional 25% emission reduction in current pledges... presumes to keep the earth on a trajectory for an ~ 3-4°C temperature rise...

Elements of the Cancun Agreements include:

=> Industrialised country targets are officially recognised under the multilateral process and these countries are to develop low-carbon development plans and strategies and assess how best to meet them, including through market mechanisms, and to report their inventories annually.

=> Developing country actions to reduce emissions are officially recognised under the multilateral process. A registry is to be set up to record and match developing country mitigation actions to finance and technology support from by industrialised countries. Developing countries are to publish progress reports every two years.

=> Parties meeting under the the Kyoto Protocol agree to continue negotiations with the aim of completing their work and ensuring there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the treaty.

=> The Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanisms has been strengthened to drive more major investments and technology into environmentally sound and sustainable emission reduction projects in the developing world.

=> Parties launched a set of initiatives and institutions to protect the vulnerable from climate change and to deploy the money and technology that developing countries need to plan and build their own sustainable futures.

=> A total of US$30 billion in fast start finance from industrialised countries to support climate action in the developing world up to 2012 and the intention to raise US$100 billion in long-term funds by 2020 is included in the decisions.

=> In the field of climate finance, a process to design a Green Climate Fund under the Conference of the Parties, with a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, is established.

=> A new "Cancun Adaptation Framework" is established to allow better planning and implementation of adaptation projects in developing countries through increased financial and technical support, including a clear process for continuing work on loss and damage.

=> Governments agree to boost action to curb emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries with technological and financial support.

=> Parties have established a technology mechanism with a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network to increase technology cooperation to support action on adaptation and mitigation.

full agreement (draft/unedited):

[lukin]

An interesting perspective.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/10/moncktons-mexican-missive-4/

[Pliny]

An interesting perspective.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/10/moncktons-mexican-missive-4/

That was a good read. We need science behind the claims not nonsensical politicians or the likes of waldo.