Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Offer something worth our time rather than your opinions.
If you have science that suggests AGW is flawed then offer it to us.
Your ability to present a case at ASF is not particularly good.

You could always read the scientist mentioned, plus others, rather than going the low road *yet again* and indulging in putrid ad hom.

FYI https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ plus other sources I'm sure you may be intelligent enough to Google.

 

[rederob]

You could always read the scientist mentioned, plus others, rather than going the low road *yet again* and indulging in putrid ad hom.

I note this thread was started by quoting from Richard Lindzen who is particularly good at cherrypicking for his views:

"Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the​

arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)"

The trend was pretty obvious when Lindzen made that remark and a more honest scientist would have used what was available at the time, and has since become even more obvious:

What was notable from Lindzen's article was his total lack of appreciation of AGW theory which relies on a vast body of scientific evidence across many fields over century timeframes. Lindzen is one of the many con artists in science who craft a story from incomplete and occasionally totally discredited information to suggest we need not worry because what's happening now is symptomatic of the natural cycle. E.g:

The Will Happers and Lord Moncktons of the science world are less credible and mostly get recognition in the climate science denying community which @wayneL often links to.

 

[Joules MM1]

The New York Times
@nytime
·15h

"Last month was the hottest June on record in North America. 1,200 daytime records were broken in the final week. But there was an even greater number of daily records set by a different — and maybe more dangerous — measure: overnight temperatures.

 

[Joules MM1]

#permafrost July 22nd 2021

 

[Joules MM1]

IPCC AR6-WGI Atlas

IPCC Assestment Report 6 Atlas

interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch

Zack Labe (Climate (Atmospheric) Scientist | Postdoc at @CSUAtmosSci | PhD - @uciess, @CornellEAS )


" I HIGHLY recommend checking out the interactive
@IPCC_CH
climate atlas - https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#InteractiveAtlas…. Great for education and outreach. For example, look at change in boreal winter temperatures in the #Arctic by the end of the 21st century... just awful."

 

[Joules MM1]

Hurricanes and climate change - SciLine

Science facts describing how human-induced climate change is causing hurricanes to grow stronger and more destructive.

www.sciline.org

excerpt

• The five costliest U.S. Earth-system disasters (including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, fires, and all kinds of extreme weather, adjusted for inflation) have all been hurricanes, and all five have occurred within the past 15 years: Harvey (2017), Katrina (2005), Sandy (2012), Irma (2017), and Maria (2017).

inc citations

 

[Knobby22]

 

[Joules MM1]

NASA Climate
@NASAClimate
·Sep 3
Our climate has changed naturally throughout history, but this time it's different: Human activity is now considered the principal cause.

 

[wayneL]

View attachment 129850

NASA Climate
@NASAClimate
·Sep 3
Our climate has changed naturally throughout history, but this time it's different: Human activity is now considered the principal cause.
View attachment 129851

So are you going to scuttle the private jet, mate?

 

[Joules MM1]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-Y0D9GXECAHRvf?format=jpg&name=small

Robbie Andrew: Professional home page

Professional home page of Robbie Andrew, listing research projects with links to journal articles, reports, and other publications

folk.universitetetioslo.no

 

[Smurf1976]

There have been a number of original CC skeptics who over time and with more evidence recognised the reality of what is happening.

There's nothing wrong with questioning and seeking to prove or disprove. That concept lies at the heart of science after all.

Not accepting the results of proper research is the problem.

That was the problem with lead in petrol. The hazard was demonstrated back in the 1920's beyond reasonable doubt but still they persisted with putting tetraethyllead in, by the time it was fully rolled out, pretty much all petrol used anywhere on the planet. End result is lead contamination turned up even in places a long way from the nearest car, for example the North Pole and south-west Tasmania, and pretty much the entire population copped low level poisoning.

Asbestos was another one. The dangers were known long before most of it was mined and before any of us were born but still the went ahead regardless and the end result is the stuff's pretty much everywhere. Personally well I've had a known exposure incident, hopefully it doesn't kill me but it could end up doing so, but don't kid yourself - there's asbestos fibre in your lungs that I'll guarantee you. That goes for everyone who reads this. Even worse, asbestos mining is in some countries still a major industry to day - and despite being illegal some does find its way to Australia yes.

Tobacco was another one. Lung cancer deaths started to shoot up about 1930, 20 years after cigarette smoking dramatically increased. They knew the truth but denied it through to the late 1950's then carried on anyway even when the danger was finally acknowledged. FWIW one of the tobacco companies had the "clever" idea of putting asbestos in cigarette filters - I kid you not.

Now it's the same with climate. There were things written about it expressing concern as far back as the 1800's and, from his old handwritten engineering notes that I have, it seems my own grandfather was aware of it during the early 1950's. He wasn't a climate scientist (he was a civil engineer) but from his handwritten notes it seems that he was definitely aware of the concept that humans were changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere and that, if this went far enough, it would affect the climate.

Now I won't claim to be a climate scientist, since I'm not one, but I can certainly read reports of work done by others who are climate scientists, I can look for any apparent omissions, I can look at observed data and see if their past projections were accurate to date and so on.

My conclusion, in short, is that there's certainly some "science" that's in the junk or game playing category but the problem is very real and, in short, we're outright ****** if it isn't meaningfully addressed in a very timely manner. That there's some nonsense surrounding it in a manner not dissimilar to asbestos, lead, tobacco etc doesn't change that there's a real issue that needs to be sorted ASAP.

 

[rederob]

Not accepting the results of proper research is the problem.

It remains the problem, although a lesser problem than continuing inaction.
Posted almost 12 years ago in this thread @Vizion's points have had no valid counter since:

Can someone show me one study that shows the earth has not warmed, that the oceans have not risen, that the planet has greater biodiversity, that this planets varied species has flourished.

How about a study that shows carbon is not in greater quantities in the atmosphere, that the temperature in Australia is going down.
How about a study that shows our forest are in better condition, that the air is safer for our children to breathe.

The chief scientist in my division spent two years as part of the Australian Antarctic Expedition from 95 to 97, I am going to listen the results gathered from their ice cores, before I listen to a few people here who do NOT believe we are causing damage to our planet. I don't care what anyone posts, there is NOT ONE FACT that supports the naysayers, it's a matter of degree's you are all arguing about. Meanwhile the damage keeps getting done...

AGW denialists at ASF have posted a continuing stream of codswallop and pseudoscience to support what they believe, and that's pretty much the same as what well funded industry lobby groups have espoused. As @Smurf1976 notes, it's a theme that borrows heavily from denialist playbooks, and even creeps into ASF covid threads where baseless beliefs thrive.

The idea that if our planet gets a few degrees warmer it won't be a problem seems reasonable on the surface (excuse pun). Day to day weather varies considerably, after all. However, that ignores what the science tells us. That's things like longer, earlier and warmer summers that exacerbate bush fires. And about warmer oceans that not only add intensity to hurricanes/cyclones, but add unseasonally extra moisture into the air so that unexpected and unprecedented flooding events are becoming more common. These are NOW occurrences. Not events we have to wait for in another 50 to 80 years.

There are actual life threatening dangers in promoting poorly based themes and sustaining them year after year. But that's what so called "free speech" allows, so let's be grateful after all as we are heavily backed at the coal face....

 

[Joules MM1]

 

[Joules MM1]

Zack Labe

We have a problem. Checking in on the latest observations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄)...

Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_k1FAoUYAIVYYg?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

 

[Joules MM1]

https://www.amap.no/documents/download/6759/inline

excerpts:
PERMAFROST TEMPERATURE Arctic permafrost has warmed by 2–3°C since the 1970s.
At many colder permafrost sites, rates of warming over the past 20 years have been
greater than any since 1979. The seasonally thawed active layer has grown deeper
at many sites since the 1990s, and landscape observations indicate permafrost thaw across the Arctic.

TERRESTRIAL SNOW COVER Arctic snow cover extent during the months of
May through June declined by 21% from 1971 to 2019, with a larger decrease (25%) over
Eurasia compared with North America (17%).

 

[Joules MM1]

@explod ....juust one more

 

[explod]

@explod ....juust one more

Yes, the accelerating effects are now quite alarming.

Thanks for your posts Joules.

 

[mullokintyre]

As we approach the souther hemisphere cyclone season, the warnings about being prepared are starting to come out.
According to the BOM,bia ABC News

Queensland is facing an increased risk from a trifecta of natural disasters this summer, according to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).
There is a heightened risk of cyclones, bushfires and flooding for Queenslanders and residents are being told to get ready.

The BOM said an average to slightly-above-average number of tropical cyclones are expected to form in the Australian region this season.

The season, which runs from November through to April, usually results in around 11 cyclones impacting Australian waters, with about four crossing the coast.
"The outlook this year is that we could see more tropical cyclones than we usually see in a typical year.

"The details of location, intensity and timing, that's the information that we don't have.
BOM data shows at least one tropical cyclone a year has crossed the coast since records began in the 1970s.

I get a couple of interesting things from the above.
1. Records only go back as far as 1970's . I found this a little surprising, given that tropical cyclones have been known about for a very long time. but I guess because they didn't happen in Canberra , Melbourne , Sydney . Adelaide, Perth or Hobart, they were not considered important.
2. BOM also predicted that last year 2020 would also have a greater than average number of cyclones. We managed to get 8, not the greater than 11 they forecast. see New Daily
Last year, i read the following in an ABC News article that was dated July 23rd.

Cyclones have been notoriously hard to predict over decades, but a new scientific model could prove to be a circuit-breaker, particularly in the cyclone-battered Pacific.
The University of Newcastle, in collaboration with New Zealand's National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research, has released a new predictive tool call Long-Range Tropical Cyclone Outlook for the Southwest Pacific (TCO-SP), which can forecast cyclones up to four months in advance.
Current modelling only produces forecasts one month in advance, while actual cyclone paths may not necessarily follow predicted paths.
Traditionally, tropical cyclones have been hard to predict but the new model captures the interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere to provide an outlook for the number of tropical cyclones that will occur during the cyclone season.

I did not see any predictions for the 8 cyclones of last season even a week in advance, much less four months in advance.
If the brilliant new predictive model was working well, we should have the predictions now for at least through to January this year.
It matters little whether we get two or ten cyclones this year, the only useful prediction is their track, which still seems to be pretty much a hit and miss affair for anything beyond 24 to 36 hours.
Cyclones that blow out to sea are of interest to mariners, but of little import to those on the mainland.
Having had the doubtful privilege of going through two cat 5 cyclones plus one puny cat 3, it is more than a touch alarming.
Mick

 

[rederob]

As we approach the souther hemisphere cyclone season, the warnings about being prepared are starting to come out.
According to the BOM,bia ABC News

You continue to have real problems with data and forecasts.
You first link referred only to Queensland, and was spot on:

Senior meteorologist Laura Boekel said while she could not give specific numbers, more than four cyclones were predicted to form in the Coral Sea this season, as well as one to two in the Gulf of Carpentaria.​

“One to two of those [could be expected to] cross the coast … and with the La Nina, more likely than not, we’ll see an increase in those numbers,” she said.​

​

Here's the map showing what happened:

I did not see any predictions for the 8 cyclones of last season even a week in advance, much less four months in advance. If the brilliant new predictive model was working well, we should have the predictions now for at least through to January this year.

I guess you do not watch the weather forecasts, as all were detailed well beforehand.
WRT to advanced forecasting, this has already been published:

The BOM, however, has yet to update us with their 2021-22 TC expectations.
None of your post has anything to do with climate hysteria, however, just your failure to work out what modelling attempts to achieve.

 

[mullokintyre]

You continue to have real problems with data and forecasts.
You first link referred only to Queensland, and was spot on:

And you continue to never read what is quoted,
The article about Queensland is the forecast for the coming season.
You put up a map purporting to show what happened.
Thats pretty amazing seeing as we have not yet entered the cyclone season.
I don't know where you got the map from, but it gots nothing to with the forecasts for the 2021 season.
You screwed up Rob, and no amount of your bullsh!t will escape that.
Mick