Resisting Climate Hysteria

[noco]

Really Wayne ? Really. Are we actually reading the same articles or do you simply find something in there that disagrees with James Hansen paper and use that to justify your dismissal of the whole concept. (and there were 18 other scientists who contributed to the analysis)

A few comments from Judith Curries analysis in June 2015.


https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/

What else did Climate Home say about the paper.


http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...yptic-sea-level-study-lands-to-mixed-reviews/

The issue that should raise concern is the current exceptional increases in global temperatures and in particular the Arctic and Antarctic. The paper was analysing the possible consequences of a rapid breakdown of the ice sheets. The current temperature extremes just add further fuel to the risk of an acceleration of the ice sheet melt.

From my post 1013 from the Greens Party.

If only you could believe them......Of course there is plenty of naive people who do....It is about time the alarmist stopped trying pulling the wool over our eyes. ...The game is up.


Faith and belief

For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated than in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture.

To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.

Similarly Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps one of the most dramatic scenes in the film is the depiction of an ice-wall collapsing. Viewers are led to believe that they are watching footage of an actual collapse. The truth, however, is that the scene was taken from the opening credits of a Hollywood movie, The day after tomorrow. [xxix]

Despite the fact that a British court found the film contained significant errors, [xxx] many environmentalists continue to believe it is true. For these environmentalists, the errors are merely inconvenient mistakes that fail to negate the Armageddon the world faces unless drastic measures are taken. Again, this is an example of belief, rather than reason. “Evidence” can be manufactured. Scientific empiricism is a vehicle to be manipulated for a political cause. Worse still, the film is now being proposed for the National Curriculum in Australian schools.

The Greens belief in their environmental nirvana manifests itself in a new coercive utopianism.

Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution. We will be left debating instrumental outcomes, as if they are based on the same cultural and philosophical foundations that underpin western civilisation. What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within western civilization itself. [xxxi]

 

[wayneL]

Really Wayne ? Really. Are we actually reading the same articles or do you simply find something in there that disagrees with James Hansen paper and use that to justify your dismissal of the whole concept. (and there were 18 other scientists who contributed to the analysis)

A few comments from Judith Curries analysis in June 2015.


https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/

What else did Climate Home say about the paper.


http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...yptic-sea-level-study-lands-to-mixed-reviews/

The issue that should raise concern is the current exceptional increases in global temperatures and in particular the Arctic and Antarctic. The paper was analysing the possible consequences of a rapid breakdown of the ice sheets. The current temperature extremes just add further fuel to the risk of an acceleration of the ice sheet melt.

You see you've cherry picked the most alarmist content, I've just cited the whole articles for their balance.

Do you see the difference there? Do you see that you have a problem in only being able to see the most worst case and most improbable scenario?

Do you see that you've observed an El Nino spike (that even Gavin Schmidt thinks is temporary) and extrapolated that as some sort of permanent new trend?

Get a grip man!

 

[wayneL]

Here's another interesting thing concerning Fannery's Flim-Flammery, The Australian Climate council; disingenuity of the worst order:

The Climate Council’s Memory Hole

 

[noco]

Here's another interesting thing concerning Fannery's Flim-Flammery, The Australian Climate council; disingenuity of the worst order:

The Climate Council’s Memory Hole

Wayne, isn't amazing, no what you throw in the face of these alarmist about the misrepresentation and myths of these so called peer reviewed papers on Global Warming, sorry I should say "Climate Change" , they still keep on keeping on.

When will they ever give up?

 

[Knobby22]

I will send it into ABCs media watch. This is the sort of stuff they love to attack.

 

[basilio]

You see you've cherry picked the most alarmist content, I've just cited the whole articles for their balance.

Do you see the difference there? Do you see that you have a problem in only being able to see the most worst case and most improbable scenario?

Do you see that you've observed an El Nino spike (that even Gavin Schmidt thinks is temporary) and extrapolated that as some sort of permanent new trend?

Get a grip man!

I don't accept your interpretation Wayne. James Hansen and others examine the effects of a rapid (as distinct from slower) break up of the Antarctic /Arctic ice sheets. At this stage all the glaciologists accept that the sheets are melting and that 100-200-300 years we will have sea level rises of many metres with the obvious consequences.

This paper suggest this might come far sooner if their hypothesis proves correct. Do we think it's worth exploring that hypothesis further ?

This is connected with the huge spike in temperatures this year because this changes the climate parameters of last years paper. Yes we have an El Nino event. But the underlying temperature increase also seems to be accelerating. Yes the spike will moderate as El Nino recedes but on all present indications the gradient of future temperature increases has steepened.

We are not stabilising global temperatures Wayne. We are not cooling. We have a vanishingly small chance of stabilising the current temperatures.

 

[wayneL]

Such deterministic certainty cannot exist in a chaotic system, particularly when so much data is "adjusted" by unknown parameters, bazza.

Did you read the Quadrant article? Do you see this as emblematic of the disingenuity of the leftist branch of (cough) "science"?

Have you had the cajones to read recent and embarrassing deconstructions of the Cookesque 97% fraud?

 

[trainspotter]

Tell me basilio .. is the glass half full or half empty?

 

[wayneL]

View attachment 66145

Tell me basilio .. is the glass half full or half empty?

THE ICE IS MELTING!!!

 

[trainspotter]

Drat's ... you are onto me wayneL

 

[basilio]

Keep deluding yourselves boys. I'm sure it will be a cheaper way to stay sane and happy than considering the alternatives

 

[noco]

Such deterministic certainty cannot exist in a chaotic system, particularly when so much data is "adjusted" by unknown parameters, bazza.

Did you read the Quadrant article? Do you see this as emblematic of the disingenuity of the leftist branch of (cough) "science"?

Have you had the cajones to read recent and embarrassing deconstructions of the Cookesque 97% fraud?

Wayne, it is the Greens faith and belief and they are as thick as a brick when it comes to presenting them with the truth that this whole Global Warming stunt is a farce.....a scam.....They will never change no matter how much argument you throw up them.....It is there bible and they dare not stray away from what they have been brain washed with......Their Global Warming bible is made of lies, myths, scenarios and fictitious modeling.

They know they have been beaten time and time again......It is time for them to give up the crap they are trying fill our heads with.

 

[Knobby22]

Lol....and reality, don't forget that.
Look at the North Pole Noco.
Santa is looking for somewhere to set up his new elven sweatshop this northern summer as there will be little ice left.

And the Chinese have already bought the land for the new ports as the ship route through the pole will be far quicker and cheaper than through the equator.

 

[wayneL]

Keep deluding yourselves boys. I'm sure it will be a cheaper way to stay sane and happy than considering the alternatives

Funny that you mention sanity.......

I couldn't give stuff about your Apocalypse fantasy, but I do care about those you collectively affect. I've already been close to one of your collective victims.

Hey and guess how Bernie's getting around.

 

[explod]

Lol....and reality, don't forget that.
Look at the North Pole Noco.
Santa is looking for somewhere to set up his new elven sweatshop this northern summer as there will be little ice left.

And the Chinese have already bought the land for the new ports as the ship route through the pole will be far quicker and cheaper than through the equator.

Spot on Knobby22, but I have found time and time again that the reality of what is really taking place on the ground is ignored.

 

[noco]

Lol....and reality, don't forget that.
Look at the North Pole Noco.
Santa is looking for somewhere to set up his new elven sweatshop this northern summer as there will be little ice left.

And the Chinese have already bought the land for the new ports as the ship route through the pole will be far quicker and cheaper than through the equator.

Yes it is a fact the Arctic ice sheet is melting and nobody can deny it, but this phenomenon has happened before in the 17th century and also some 10,000 ago and has more to do with the tilting of the axis of the Earth to the Sun than man made CO2.....When the ice melts there is a lot more methane gas released as well which accentuates the melting.

There is a multitude of information on google if anyone needs further information.....There are some interesting articles pertaining to the subject.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/icefreearctic.html

Talking about ice-free arctic often triggers a lot of shouts and accusations of catastrophism. Yet, we know that the arctic has already been ice-free in summer before. We know it's possible, what is left to understand are the conditions which may produce such an event.
There is evidence (Polyak et. al 2010) that current conditions of an extensively glaciated Arctic were established at the beginning of the Pleistocene, about 3 million years ago. The quaternary glacial-interglacial cycles, governed by orbital cycles, are reflected in the Arctic sea ice extension. At times, average temperature has been 3-5 °C higher than present and totally or almost totally ice-free conditions during summer occured.

It is thought that the main driver of these ice retreats is summer insolation at high latitudes, though regional effects (e.g. the presence of large ice sheets) produce geographically non uniform or delayed retreats. The last occurrence of a maximum in northern high latitude summer insolation was about 10 thousand years ago. It was a generally warmer than present period, but not uniformly so, and the temperature north of 60 ° was a couple of degrees centigrade above present (Kaufmann 2004).

A recent review on arctic ice variability suggests that "the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice-free summers in the central Arctic Ocean". This finding lowers the "threshold" for an ice-free summer to a few degrees centigrade of warming.

This fact may come as a surprise. Indeed, IPCC projections of summer arctic sea ice extent, while showing an overall decrease, do not show ice-free conditions up to at least the end of 21st century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_in_the_Arctic

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "warming in the Arctic, as indicated by daily maximum and minimum temperatures, has been as great as in any other part of the world."[4] The period of 1995-2005 was the warmest decade in the Arctic since at least the 17th century, with temperatures 2 °C (3.6 °F) above the 1951-1990 average.[5] Some regions within the Arctic have warmed even more rapidly, with Alaska and western Canada's temperature rising by 3 to 4 °C (5.40 to 7.20 °F).[6] This warming has been caused not only by the rise in greenhouse gas concentration, but also the deposition of soot on Arctic ice.[7] A 2013 article published in Geophysical Research Letters has shown that temperatures in the region haven't been as high as they currently are since at least 44,000 years ago and perhaps as long as 120,000 years ago. The authors conclude that "anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have led to unprecedented regional warmth."[8][9]

Conditions in the Arctic change dramatically through the seasons. In the depths of winter, the Earth’s tilt puts the Arctic in 24 hour-a-day darkness. Temperatures, cold year round, plunge even lower. The sea surface freezes over. At the height of summer, the opposite tilt puts the Arctic in 24 hour-a-day sunlight. While it’s a cold cold place even at these times, the constant sunshine, warmer air, and influx of warm waters from further south serve to melt the ice. The ice cap usually starts shrinking in March, and then reaches its smallest area in mid-September, before cooling temperatures and shorter days start the water freezing and the ice cap growing once again.

 

[cynic]

The remarkable thing about these religious debates is the way in which they highlight the folly of presuming the infallibility of one's personal opinion and subsequently compounding that error by assuming that this entitles one to pressure others into adoption of an identical viewpoint.

My opinion of mankind's capacity to influence and irrevocably alter the course of nature is somewhat different to that of those ceaselessly banging the apocalyptic drum.

Given the strength of my personal convictions, which happen to be supportable by numerous scientific facts, am I now entitled to insist that everyone convert to my philosophy?

 

[Knobby22]

If your convictions are strong enough and you are elequent then there is money to be obtained.by publishing them from a number of shadowy organisations. Who knows ? If you are persuasive enough and form a philosophy then you could set up a religion like Ron Hubbard. Go for it, Cynic.

 

[Knobby22]

Hi noco. The change in tilt of the earth is a very slow process and would not cause such a sudden warming and in any case would result in cooler weather in the southern atmosphere which has obviously not occurred. I do agree soot is an important factor and methane release increasingly so.

 

[cynic]

If your convictions are strong enough and you are elequent then there is money to be obtained.by publishing them from a number of shadowy organisations. Who knows ? If you are persuasive enough and form a philosophy then you could set up a religion like Ron Hubbard. Go for it, Cynic.

Thanks for your encouragement.

An additional question is:

Will the proponents of AGW be happy when they discover that my scientifically based opinion happens to identify them as a far greater threat to the longevity of mankind than CO2 emissions?