If Climate Science Is Settled Then Why Do We Need Research Scientists?

[AlbqOwl]

When they stop being ope minded, they are minions of the dogma.

And they are no longer scientists.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The Chicken Little society...

Article written in 2013:

. . .empirical observations of the rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice which is heading for disappearance within two or three years according to Nature co-author and renowned Arctic expert Prof Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar ocean physics group at Cambridge University.

If Prof Wadhams is correct in his forecast that the summer sea ice could be gone by 2015, then we might be closer to the tipping point than we realise. To get to the bottom of the scientific basis for the Nature paper's scenarios, I interviewed Prof Wadhams. Here's what he had to say: . . .​

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian

So 2015 has come and gone and there is still an awful lot of arctic ice up there. How many times do they have to cry wolf before even the AGW religionists will realize they shouldn't believe?

 

[AlbqOwl]

One thing I have noticed in the last couple of years or so is that they seem to be giving up on the CO2 danger as their credibility on that begins to be a little bit ridiculous when none of their models seem to be credible on that. So I'm seeing more concern now about methane. So how will they use that to tax the folks and tighten their control on almost every aspect of our lives?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So 2015 has come and gone and there is still an awful lot of arctic ice up there. How many times do they have to cry wolf before even the AGW religionists will realize they shouldn't believe?

They will believe it forever. They are religious zealots.

 

[Lord of Planar]

One thing I have noticed in the last couple of years or so is that they seem to be giving up on the CO2 danger as their credibility on that begins to be a little bit ridiculous when none of their models seem to be credible on that. So I'm seeing more concern now about methane. So how will they use that to tax the folks and tighten their control on almost every aspect of our lives?

Methane is also a joke, but a new scare tactic for them.

The scary RE (radiative efficiency) and GWP (global warming potential) numbers are a fraud perpetrated against reality. They use the instantaneous slope values which on a log curve, diminish as the gas level increases. Generating a graph by the IPCC numbers and formulas, methane is only about 15% as strong as CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So how will they use that to tax the folks and tighten their control on almost every aspect of our lives?

They will do what ever they can to gain more control over the people. They just don't have enough sheeple yet.

 

[JackA]

He never did link it. He expects us to believe his words.

Sorry to be late. I don't live here.

Large Swaths Of The Pacific Ocean May Actually Suffocate In Just 15 Years

 

[Tim the plumber]

Sorry to be late. I don't live here.

Large Swaths Of The Pacific Ocean May Actually Suffocate In Just 15 Years

I wonder how the world managed when we were not in the present ice age?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sorry to be late. I don't live here.

Large Swaths Of The Pacific Ocean May Actually Suffocate In Just 15 Years

LOL...

Modelled.

LOL...

How many of their models are even close to reality 15 years later?

LOL...

Anthropogenically forced trends in oceanic dissolved oxygen are evaluated in Earth system models in the context of natural variability.

 

[Threegoofs]

I haven't seen such a study in the journals I subscribe to.

Link please.

Find the source, or I will assume you are making it up, or repeating the lies of pundits.

It's 'journal'. Singular.

 

[Threegoofs]

Article written in 2013:

. . .empirical observations of the rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice which is heading for disappearance within two or three years according to Nature co-author and renowned Arctic expert Prof Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar ocean physics group at Cambridge University.

If Prof Wadhams is correct in his forecast that the summer sea ice could be gone by 2015, then we might be closer to the tipping point than we realise. To get to the bottom of the scientific basis for the Nature paper's scenarios, I interviewed Prof Wadhams. Here's what he had to say: . . .​

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian

So 2015 has come and gone and there is still an awful lot of arctic ice up there. How many times do they have to cry wolf before even the AGW religionists will realize they shouldn't believe?

Note that ice in the Arctic is lower now than it ever has been before.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Apparently though, some people take this as evidence that AGW doesn't exist.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Note that ice in the Arctic is lower now than it ever has been before.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Apparently though, some people take this as evidence that AGW doesn't exist.

Maybe lowest since we have had satellite records which is an insignificant teensy blip in the larger picture of climate trends. And maybe not. We don't know since the NSIDC has discontinued their updates because the satellite imaging has a problem. And once before, they had to back down on their report of sharply reduced arctic ice coverage when evidence was presented that the satellite image was flawed. Given the warmer weather and more open water on the Bering Sea for the crab season just ended, we are definitely in a warm spell. Not an unprecedented or unusual warm spell--just a warm spell. The year before ice on the Bering Sea was a serious problem for the crab fishermen.

 

[Geoist]

No disagreement among the pro-AGW crowd. All you have to do is keep parroting those points to keep the grant money coming in, or keep your job at the university or whatever, or to be included in the 'in' crowd for other socioeconomic or political reasons.

There's no disagreement amongst scientists over helio-centrism vs. geo-centrism. Must be a conspiracy.

 

[Geoist]

Still there is only so much funding that can be afforded.

With how we spend on our military you wouldn't think that is the case.

 

[Threegoofs]

There's no disagreement amongst scientists over helio-centrism vs. geo-centrism. Must be a conspiracy.

It's not a conspiracy. It's just liberal groupthink.

 

[longview]

There's no disagreement amongst scientists over helio-centrism vs. geo-centrism. Must be a conspiracy.

It is an apt analogy, just not in favor of catastrophic AGW.
In the era of Copernicus, The Scientific consensus was for Ptolemy's geocentric system.
The consensus was so strong, they even enlisted the authority of the Church to attempt to prosecute
any who held heretical belief that the earth revolved around the sun.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's not a conspiracy. It's just liberal groupthink.

LOL...

Did you forget what side you are batting for?

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL...

Did you forget what side you are batting for?

Did you see what my post was in response to?

 

[Geoist]

It is an apt analogy, just not in favor of catastrophic AGW.
In the era of Copernicus, The Scientific consensus was for Ptolemy's geocentric system.
The consensus was so strong, they even enlisted the authority of the Church to attempt to prosecute
any who held heretical belief that the earth revolved around the sun.

Take a look at how much scientific data/research supported the geo-centric model and compare that to the data that supports AGW.

 

[longview]

Take a look at how much scientific data/research supported the geo-centric model and compare that to the data that supports AGW.

It is a crude comparison, Science at the time of Copernicus was barely beyond superstition.
The data that supports that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and doubling it's level to 560 ppm
will cause about 1.2 C of warming is fairly strong.
The data in support of the predicted amplified warming, is almost non existent.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is a crude comparison, Science at the time of Copernicus was barely beyond superstition.
The data that supports that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and doubling it's level to 560 ppm
will cause about 1.2 C of warming is fairly strong.
The data in support of the predicted amplified warming, is almost non existent.

Yes, a straight calculation yields 1.31 degrees assuming how 3.708 W/m^2 for a doubling affects the black body radiation calculations of the earth.

However, that is assuming the nominal 3.71 W/m^2 we see in most papers is correct. I dispute this figure, and the basis of calculations started from research in the late 70's when they already started clearing the optics of the sky. They then used correlations that didn't properly take all changing factors in effect.

How many of you have ever seen an alarmist AGW paper that calculates the changing transparency of the skies? I can not find papers newer than maybe 30 years. I ask you all consider if such facts are an inconvenient truth to the purse holders of funding research. Consider this:

Please note how the 4% variance in solar signal, caused by atmospheric transparency changes, affect the temperature. Please note that with that 4% peak to peak different, it correlates to a 0.6 degree change in smoothed temperatures. I sure would like to see modern clear sky solar comparisons, but cannot find the data anywhere to use. It's as if there is no funding at all to maintain such a system, like they did in the past.

Goofs likes to show a lagged temperature vs. CO2 and gets a R[SUP]2[/SUP] factor of 0.8xxx. I did one with lagged solar, and has a 0.9483:

As I keep telling him and others that "like" his posts, two relatively stable trends will have a high correlation, even if unrelated.

I have also on several occasion mentioned the pollution starting around WWII, and the clearing of the skies in the 70's. Once we cleared the skies, and move the dates to cut out the period of dirty skies back to clean:

If the trend continues, we will of course see warming for some time now, and not by CO2. The lag cause by solar changes are very short on land, but the effects on the 2/3rds of the earth that is water, lasts 100 years:

By focusing on time sequences of basin-average and global-average upper
ocean temperature (i.e., from 40S to 60N) we find temperatures responding to changing
solar irradiance in three separate frequency bands with periods of >100 years, 18-25
years, and 9-13 years.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...and-denial-post1065845257.html#post1065845257

I had repeated this over and over based on Hansen's paper claiming this same 100 years of lag for the CO2-ocean-atmosphric coupling.

I'm not going to look for it now, because I don't remember where to look for it, but there is a paper only a few years old that claims the sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is only around 0.53 W/m^2. Maybe it was 0.56 W/m^2. If this number is true, warming from CO2 would only be about 0.38 to 0.41 degrees.

Then of course there is feedback. Isn't it funny how only the feedback for greenhouse gasses is claimed? What about feedback for other variables?

The climate community has absolutely no integrity. If they really focused on science, instead of using science for an agenda, they would be open about these things I mention.

Now with newer cleaner technology, how much cleaner are the mid latitude skies now? Temperatures are bound to increase with increased atmospheric transparency.

 

[longview]

Good breakdown, and analysis!
It sure looks like there are unaccounted for variables missing from the models.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Good breakdown, and analysis!
It sure looks like there are unaccounted for variables missing from the models.

Too many. Especially the aerosol buildup and clearing from the 40's to 90's, and the solar radiation reaching the earth through the optical transparency changes of the skies.

I am so confounded at how this is called science at all, with the way they ignore the obvious.

 

[Threegoofs]

Too many. Especially the aerosol buildup and clearing from the 40's to 90's, and the solar radiation reaching the earth through the optical transparency changes of the skies.

I am so confounded at how this is called science at all, with the way they ignore the obvious.

Man. You guys are hilarious.

 

[Threegoofs]

It is a crude comparison, Science at the time of Copernicus was barely beyond superstition.
The data that supports that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and doubling it's level to 560 ppm
will cause about 1.2 C of warming is fairly strong.
The data in support of the predicted amplified warming, is almost non existent.

I'm so confused.

I just saw this link:

Real Global Temperature Trend, p18 – Now how high is climate sensitivity? Here’s the answer of the world’s 13 leading climate experts! | Bits of Science

And I'm confused, because on the link of leading climate experts, they seem to have forgotten Longview and Lord of Planar.

Must be an oversight. LOL.