Resisting Climate Hysteria

[mullokintyre]

If you want to quote Tisdale as having a viewpoint worth considering then you should also understand what would make it credible.
So rather than obfuscate, explain how ENSO is contributing to global warming as Tisdale claims.

Another great contribution.
You make assertions and never back them up, just go on and make another one.
You made an assertion about Curry and energy conservation without providing any link to the interview.
When I questioned the closed systems statement you switched to saying without any proof that over decadel scales it approximates a enclosed system, again without any proof.
Next, when I questioned that statement you switched to saying Tisdale didn't understand ENSO, again without any proof, and accused me of obfuscation.
You are just as guilty of all the sins you blame others.
You constantly belittle others comments, but are happy to make your own statements as if they are fact.
In other words, you consistently play man when people don't accept your words as gospel.
Something you have accused a number of others of doing.
As me ole man would say, Ya full of it.

 

[rederob]

You made an assertion about Curry and energy conservation without providing any link to the interview.

I did link to the Curry interview so please read it. Curry acknowledges a human influence on climate but, despite an abundance of information, seems unable to work out that it must have occurred since the Industrial Revolution and is increasing in pace today. Less forgivable is her unwillingness to point the finger at GHGs, and as mitigation being a solution.

When I questioned the closed systems statement you switched to saying without any proof that over decadel scales it approximates a enclosed system, again without any proof. Next, when I questioned that statement you switched to saying Tisdale didn't understand ENSO, again without any proof, and accused me of obfuscation.

I clearly state why Tisdale cannot be right. ENSO operates via energy transfers between the ocean and atmosphere. AGW is a completely different mechanism, and acts via energy transfers between our atmosphere and the rest of the galaxy. As ENSO is cyclical at decadal scales, if it transfers energy to the atmosphere then it must cool, However, the oceans are continuing to warm, and so is the atmosphere, through successive cycles. Irradiance does not explain this, but AGW does.

You constantly belittle others comments, but are happy to make your own statements as if they are fact.

I hoped that you might explain why you offered scientists as a defence of your assertions rather than science. It is a logically fallacious way to show that you are "only interested in the data and 'the science' " as you put it.
If you were true to your word then the things that appear to confuse you regarding AGW are thoroughly explained in IPCC Reports.

I occasionally explain how some of the points you make are not well reasoned, as in the case above where you use the fallacy of an argument from authority in quoting authors rather than their science.

What anyone believes in science should have a reasoned basis, and people believing what they do should at least have some ability to explain how they arrived at their position. While climate science is complex most of the concepts are not, and what the IPCC does is offer both lay and scientific explanations of what is occurring.

 

[mullokintyre]

I did link to the Curry interview so please read it. Curry acknowledges a human influence on climate but, despite an abundance of information, seems unable to work out that it must have occurred since the Industrial Revolution and is increasing in pace today. Less forgivable is her unwillingness to point the finger at GHGs, and as mitigation being a solution.

I read the Curry interview and all the comments underneath it.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the quote. It merely proves that unlike you, she keeps an open mind.

I clearly state why Tisdale cannot be right. ENSO operates via energy transfers between the ocean and atmosphere. AGW is a completely different mechanism, and acts via energy transfers between our atmosphere and the rest of the galaxy. As ENSO is cyclical at decadal scales, if it transfers energy to the atmosphere then it must cool, However, the oceans are continuing to warm, and so is the atmosphere, through successive cycles. Irradiance does not explain this, but AGW does.

You clearly stated Why Tisdale cannot be right?
You did nothing of the kind.
If it transfers energy to the atmosphere then it must be cool makes no sense. Does the it refer to enso? If so, how on earth can it be cool? its not a temperature is a pressure differential.
I dsuspect you just copy and past stuff without actually understanding what you have written.


I

I occasionally explain how some of the points you make are not well reasoned, as in the case above where you use the fallacy of an argument from authority in quoting authors rather than their science.

Oh how noble of you!
I fawn at your superior intelligence and outstanding knowledge.
You still full of it.
Mick

 

[rederob]

I read the Curry interview and all the comments underneath it.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the quote. It merely proves that unlike you, she keeps an open mind.

How so? Curry has been consistently wrong in her commentaries and has never, ever, been able to show how her nameless "host of other reasons" can cause the warming that we experience. Curry has been so egregiously wrong in her commentaries that she remains one of many high profile scientists that the academic website The Conversation will no longer reference.

You clearly stated Why Tisdale cannot be right?
You did nothing of the kind.
If it transfers energy to the atmosphere then it must be cool makes no sense. Does the it refer to enso? If so, how on earth can it be cool? its not a temperature is a pressure differential.

I did explain it. I suggest you tell me how it can be the case that the ENSO heat loss from oceans to the atmosphere still leads to warming oceans. As I said earlier, Tisdale does not understand the law of conservation of energy.

I fawn at your superior intelligence and outstanding knowledge.

Aren't you "only interested in the data and 'the science' "?
It's all laid out as an easy read in summary form in the numerous IPCC Reports.
I don't have to anything except point this out to people who seem to believe in things that don't stack up.

 

[rederob]

For those who want to keep an "open mind" on climate change, and choose to believe Judith Curry, here's just one of many examples that show it to be unwise:

"Sea level rise operates on very long timescales. And the manmade warming that we’ve seen so far, I don’t think is really contributing much to the sea level rise that we’ve observed so far. I mean, that’s just a much longer term processes. And even if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide today, the sea level rise would keep rising."​

For about 100 years from 1850 - as shown below - there was little change in sea levels.
After that there were several step changes in the rate of rise:

The IPCC says:

Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising (virtually certain) and accelerating (high confidence). The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence). GMSL from tide gauges and altimetry observations increased from 1.4 mm yr–1 over the period 1901–1990 to 2.1 mm yr–1 over the period 1970–2015 to 3.2 mm yr–1 over the period 1993–2015 to 3.6 mm yr–1 over the period 2006–2015 (high confidence). The dominant cause of GMSL rise since 1970 is anthropogenic forcing (high confidence).​

Judith Curry's comments on sea level defy both the data and the underlying science.

 

[sptrawler]

Judith Curry's comments on sea level defy both the data and the underlying science.

What I find hard to follow, is the constantly upward price spiral of low lying water front property, is it because people don't believe the sea level rising or just don't care?

 

[rederob]

What I find hard to follow, is the constantly upward price spiral of low lying water front property, is it because people don't believe the sea level rising or just don't care?

If properties are not coastal, ie., subject to wave action, then anything a metre above present sea level won't have a problem for at least 50 years.
This paper gives a good overview of wave action at coastal locations.

 

[wayneL]

What I find hard to follow, is the constantly upward price spiral of low lying water front property, is it because people don't believe the sea level rising or just don't care?

...and the growing fleet of Gulfstreams and Lear jets among the alarmist "elite".

"They" don't believe it bro.

 

[sptrawler]

If properties are not coastal, ie., subject to wave action, then anything a metre above present sea level won't have a problem for at least 50 years.
This paper gives a good overview of wave action at coastal locations.

Here is a good website, for predictive flooding.

Coastal Risk Australia

coastalrisk.com.au

 

[mullokintyre]

So, yo

For those who want to keep an "open mind" on climate change, and choose to believe Judith Curry, here's just one of many examples that show it to be unwise:

"Sea level rise operates on very long timescales. And the manmade warming that we’ve seen so far, I don’t think is really contributing much to the sea level rise that we’ve observed so far. I mean, that’s just a much longer term processes. And even if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide today, the sea level rise would keep rising."​

For about 100 years from 1850 - as shown below - there was little change in sea levels.
After that there were several step changes in the rate of rise:

Unfortunately, the graph "shown Below" is is a global temperature versus Time graph.
It does not mention sea level rise.
An accidental screw up or a deliberate trick?

View attachment 132560

So you just to help You, heres a graph from NOAA for a US coastal port that has data going back to 1930
NOAA Sea level History
And heres one closer to home at Lord Howe island
There appears little evidence of an acelleration in sea levels from either graph.
I guess I could put up lots more, but whats the poin.

The IPCC says:

Global mean sea level (GMSL) is rising (virtually certain) and accelerating (high confidence). The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence). GMSL from tide gauges and altimetry observations increased from 1.4 mm yr–1 over the period 1901–1990 to 2.1 mm yr–1 over the period 1970–2015 to 3.2 mm yr–1 over the period 1993–2015 to 3.6 mm yr–1 over the period 2006–2015 (high confidence). The dominant cause of GMSL rise since 1970 is anthropogenic forcing (high confidence).​

Judith Curry's comments on sea level defy both the data and the underlying science.

The IPCC needs to check what it writes.
Heres an extract from the Executive Summary of Chapter 9 of the IPCC.

Despite numerous problems associated with estimates of globally coherent, secular changes in sea level based on tide gauge records, we conclude that it is highly likely that sea level has been rising over the last 100 years There is no new evidence that would alter substantially the conclusions of earlier assess-ments regarding the rate of change Our judgement is that The average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1 0 2 0 mm yr '
There is no firm evidence ol accelerations in sea level rise during this centuiy (although there is some evidence that sea level rose faster in this century compared to the previous two centuries)
As to the possible causes and their specilic contributions to past sea level rise, the uncertainties are very large, particularly tor Antarctica However in general it appears that the observed rise can be explained by thermal expansion of the oceans and by the increased melting ol mountain glaciers and the margin ot the Greenland ice sheet From present data it is impossible to judge whether the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole is currently out of balance and is contributing, either positively or negatively, to changes in sea level

I don't even need to go to the "Climate Deniers Websites " for any of the above.
Mick

 

[rederob]

Here is a good website, for predictive flooding.

Coastal Risk Australia

coastalrisk.com.au

There will be many coastal areas where waves "break through" narrow coastal strips as the sea level rises, and significantly worsen the predicted scenarios.
Buying anything on the Gold Coast less than a few metres above mean sea level is likely to have disappeared by 2100 imo.
The coastal strip from Freo to Dunsborough looks equally dodgy.
I might move the learjet from the airport at Brissie to Wellcamp too, just in case.

 

[rederob]

It does not mention sea level rise.

This is better.

The IPCC needs to check what it writes.
Heres an extract from the Executive Summary of Chapter 9 of the IPCC.

You quoted from a 30 year old IPCC Report.

Your use of specific locations to make your points about sea level changes is called cherry picking.

 

[basilio]

Interesting

You linked to a 30 year old IPCC Report.

Interesting. Mull were you aware that report was so old ? Or was it just one of the references highlighted in the on line forums you visit.?

The clearest and potentially most disastrous evidence/consequence of accelerating global warming is the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice packs. Redrob thinks we may not see sea levels rises of more than a metre before 2100. But if global heating isn't brought under control quickly by drastically reducing GG emissions then there will be very rapid undermining of these ice shelves and land based ice mountains.

And that spells the end of our current civilisation as we know it.

One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms

Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.

www.sciencedaily.com

Increased frequency of extreme ice melting in Greenland raises global flood risk

Global warming has caused extreme ice melting events in Greenland to become more frequent and more intense over the past 40 years according to new research, raising sea levels and flood risk worldwide.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[mullokintyre]

This is better.
View attachment 132564

You linked to a 30 year old IPCC Report.

Your use of specific locations to make your points about sea level changes is called cherry picking.

Yeah, but at least I used actual data on sea level.
You didn't even get the fruit right.
How many more actual tide gauges do you want me to provide?
That graph shows imperceptible changes in the rate of sea level rise of actual data.
And yet the model projections suggest a sudden massive rise in sea level.
Model projections tacked in to the end of real data.
A trick used by Michael Mann with Keith Briffas data to make the infamous Hockey stick.
The report I looked at came up in a google search.
It had no date on it.
I have no idea whether its thirty years old or three years old.
But what changed in the time since what I quoted was written and what you wrote?
More models.
How did the IPCC come to a conclusion so different to the original.
The data obviously shows that it has not increased much at all.
And yet the models show an explosion of of sea level rises.
Mick

 

[rederob]

Yeah, but at least I used actual data on sea level.

I included several links to sea level rise. You clearly did not read them as they totally refuted Curry's claims.
The level of detail in those links made it very clear that there was an increasing rate of sea level rise.

How did the IPCC come to a conclusion so different to the original.

That is an appalling level of ignorance given the links available to you, and suggestions made that you at least read the latest IPPC Report summaries.

 

[mullokintyre]

Interesting


Interesting. Mull were you aware that report was so old ? Or was it just one of the references highlighted in the on line forums you visit.?

The clearest and potentially most disastrous evidence/consequence of accelerating global warming is the rapid melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice packs. Redrob thinks we may not see sea levels rises of more than a metre before 2100. But if global heating isn't brought under control quickly by drastically reducing GG emissions then there will be very rapid undermining of these ice shelves and land based ice mountains.

And that spells the end of our current civilisation as we know it.

One-third of Antarctic ice shelf area at risk of collapse as planet warms

Study shows highest warming scenario would put 34% of Antarctic's ice shelf area at risk of fracture and collapse from melting and run-off - including 67% of the Antarctic Peninsular ice shelf area. This would allow glaciers to flow freely into the sea causing sea level rise.

www.sciencedaily.com

Increased frequency of extreme ice melting in Greenland raises global flood risk

Global warming has caused extreme ice melting events in Greenland to become more frequent and more intense over the past 40 years according to new research, raising sea levels and flood risk worldwide.

www.sciencedaily.com

As I said to Rob,
I googled IPCC report.
Unfortunately, I chose the first one that came up, but it gave no indication of its age , and the Website did not look 30 years old.
I should have guessed there was something fishy in that the document looked like it was scanned and had there were some typos.
But as I said, the IPCC have changed their tune since whenever it was produced.
As to the "extreme melting " of the ice caps, Greenland etc, it would be noticed already in sea level rises.
As for the melting of the East Antarctic Ice sheet, the fact that there are 138 Volcanoes of varying levels of activity under Antarctica might give a clue as to why at least some of the melting might be natural ( see PBS ).
it is also instructive to note that any change in the IPCC sea level rises has come since they used satellite data to detect the sea level rather than tide data. The tide data shows little accelleration
And the biggest change occurred when the satellites were changed from the Topex and Jason 1 to Jason 2 and Jason 3.
The excellent website Permanent Service Mean Sea Level has excellent continuous data from many sites across the world.
It shows the huge variations in sea level rise and fall across different regions.
Mick

 

[basilio]

Interesting to bring up the " 138 volcanoes under the Antarctic" trope. This is an informed analysis of what is happening.

log | May 6, 2020, 10:16 PDT​

Fire and Ice: Why Volcanic Activity Is Not Melting the Polar Ice Sheets​

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Mount Waesche is a 10,801-foot-high (3,292 meters) possibly active volcano at the southern end of the Executive Committee Range in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica. Credit: NASA/Michael Studinger


Few natural phenomena are as impressive or awesome to behold as glaciers and volcanoes. I’ve seen both with my own eyes. I’ve marveled at the enormous power of flowing ice as I trekked across a glacier on Washington’s Mount Rainier — an active, but dormant, volcano. And I’ve hiked a rugged lava field on Hawaii’s Big Island alone on a moonless night to witness the surreal majesty of a lava stream from Kilauea volcano spilling into the sea — its orange-red lava meeting the waves in billowing steam — while still more glowing ribbons of lava snaked down the mountain slopes behind me.

There are many places on Earth where fire meets ice. Volcanoes located in high-latitude regions are frequently snow- and ice-covered. In recent years, some have speculated that volcanic activity could be playing a role in the present-day loss of ice mass from Earth’s polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. But does the science support that idea?

Illustration of flowing water under the Antarctic ice sheet. Blue dots indicate lakes, lines show rivers. Marie Byrd Land is part of the bulging "elbow" in the left center of the image. Credit: NSF/Zina Deretsky

In short, the answer is a definitive “no,” though recent studies have shed important new light on the matter. For example, a 2017 NASA-led study by geophysicists Erik Ivins and Helene Seroussi of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory added evidence to bolster a longstanding hypothesis that a heat source called a mantle plume lies deep below Antarctica's Marie Byrd Land, explaining some of the melting that creates lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. While the study may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change and why it’s so unstable today, the researchers emphasized that the heat source isn't a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, but rather has been going on over geologic timescales, and therefore represents a background contribution to the melting of the ice sheet.

I checked in with Ivins and Seroussi to get a deeper understanding of this question, which our readers frequently ask about. Here's what I learned…

Fire and Ice: Why Volcanic Activity Is Not Melting the Polar Ice Sheets – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[rederob]

But as I said, the IPCC have changed their tune since whenever it was produced.

That is completely untrue.
What was presented in the first IPCC climate report was accurate according to the information at the time. It was consistent with what I quoted from the latest IPCC Report on sea levels as stated at post #10025 where 2 step changes in the rate of rise were quantified since 1990.

As to the "extreme melting " of the ice caps, Greenland etc, it would be noticed already in sea level rises.

In fact the IPCC quote I referenced said "The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence)."

As for the melting of the East Antarctic Ice sheet, the fact that there are 138 Volcanoes of varying levels of activity under Antarctica might give a clue as to why at least some of the melting might be natural ( see PBS ).

True, but insignificant, as @basilio pointed out above. Volcanoes do not actually represent the mechanisms which cause glacial calving.

it is also instructive to note that any change in the IPCC sea level rises has come since they used satellite data to detect the sea level rather than tide data. The tide data shows little accelleration

Another completely false claim. Here's the chart overlaying satelite data:

Your responses to date lack global data references and omit any knowledge of climate science, despite your claim to these being your bedrock.
I certainly have a habit of not reading my posts before pressing "post reply" and make mistakes from time to time which I cannot fix after ASF's editing time runs out. I have no problems acknowledging this and making the necessary fix.

 

[mullokintyre]

That is completely untrue.
What was presented in the first IPCC climate report was accurate according to the information at the time. It was consistent with what I quoted from the latest IPCC Report on sea levels as stated at post #10025 where 2 step changes in the rate of rise were quantified since 1990.

Crap. They have changed their tune.
And the mechanism for change was using proxies to create pre 1870's estimation, then tacking on real data from tide gauges, then tacking on an entirely different measuring mechanism, the first satellites in 1970s; then a new set of satellites in 1990.
Basic rule no1 in science, you change measuring mechanisms or apparatus, and you change the data.
You still have not explained why there is a discrepancy in the tide data.
Discrepancies in Tide versus Satellite data has a graph showing the discrepancies.
NASA has tried to use a Novel Modelling Tool that gives a reason for the discrepancy and due to changes in earths rotation and gravity.
As with most models, you have no way of checking their accuracy nor their validity.
However, if indeed it were true, the under reading of the tide gauges would have existed permanently, not just since the 1990's, so the period before 1990 would also have been under reading, so would need to be "adjusted" upwards accordingly.
Hence increasing the gauge values which would remove the stated increase in rates.
We also have no idea as to
This is especially true when one considers the following from Springer

The surface of the solid Earth is continually adjusting and responding to external (e.g. atmospheric loading, tidal loading) and internal (mantle flow) forces exerted upon it. Whilst many of the short-term elastic readjustments are tangible (e.g. tectonic plate friction and resultant earthquakes), the Earth is still trying to reach isostatic equilibrium in response to deglaciation of the Pleistocene Ice Sheets that occupied a significant proportion of the northern hemisphere and the advance and retreat cycles of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). The process of ongoing viscoelastic relaxation in response to this redistribution of (specifically) ice (glacio-isostasy) and water (hydro-isostasy) on the Earth’s surface is termed ‘glacial isostatic adjustment’ (henceforth ‘GIA’). Regions located both inside and outside former ice sheet centres are still responding to the deglaciation of many of the northern hemisphere ice complexes (Laurentide, Cordilleran, Innuitian, Eurasian and the British-Irish) that concluded several thousand years ago.

And secondly, as I pointed out, the

In fact the IPCC quote I referenced said "The sum of glacier and ice sheet contributions is now the dominant source of GMSL rise (very high confidence)."

True, but insignificant, as @basilio pointed out above. Volcanoes do not actually represent the mechanisms which cause glacial calving.

I never mentioned global calving, I never mentioned the mechanism.
You bring in extraneous stuff as if I had stated it.

Another completely false claim. Here's the chart overlaying satelite data:

Which part is a completely false claim? That the two sets of data don't match after 1990??
The graph you showed did exactly what I stated - it splced the satellite data onto tide data but omitted tide data from 1990.
Its a cheap trick and has been called out numerous times before, but you just blithely repost it.

View attachment 132578

I don't see any point in taking this any further,.
You can have the last say.
Mick

 

[rederob]

When I questioned the closed systems statement you switched to saying without any proof that over decadel scales it approximates a enclosed system, again without any proof.
Next, when I questioned that statement you switched to saying Tisdale didn't understand ENSO, again without any proof, and accused me of obfuscation.
You are just as guilty of all the sins you blame others.

Here's a link to a climate scientist's blog that said pretty much what I did. In short, what Tisdale claimed defied the laws of physics.
This was not hard to work out because the barrier to outflowing energy is our atmosphere.
The closed system approximation can be assumed from fractional changes to equilibrium climate sensitivity which occur over century/millennia timescales, whereas ENSO is a natural variation of temperature that is regarded as a transient climate response measurable at decadal scales:

In simple terms ENSO has no long term effect on forcing as it is regarded as a coupled system cycling through positive and negative feedbacks.