What Do We Think About Climate Change

but this is a thread about climate not genetics

 

Adaptability to survive or thrive in climate change is partially genetic. If you don't have the firestarter gene you will freeze and if you don't have the turn on the air conditioner gene you will roast.

 

wait till it warms up more and starting fires will be easier, ac will cost a fortune though

 

I took this from WUWT:

Our JGR Paper on Feedbacks is Published

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

After years of re-submissions and re-writes — always to accommodate a single hostile reviewer — our latest paper on feedbacks has finally been published by Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR).

Entitled “On the Diagnosis of Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing“, this paper puts meat on the central claim of my most recent book: that climate researchers have mixed up cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature changes. As a result, the climate system has given the illusion of positive cloud feedback.

Positive cloud feedback amplifies global warming in all the climate models now used by the IPCC to forecast global warming. But if cloud feedback is sufficiently negative, then manmade global warming becomes a non-issue.

While the paper does not actually use the words “cause” or “effect”, this accurately describes the basic issue, and is how I talk about the issue in the book. I wrote the book because I found that non-specialists understood cause-versus-effect better than the climate experts did!

This paper supersedes our previous Journal of Climate paper, entitled “Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration“, which I now believe did not adequately demonstrate the existence of a problem in diagnosing feedbacks in the climate system.

The new article shows much more evidence to support the case: from satellite data, a simple climate model, and from the IPCC AR4 climate models themselves.

Back to the Basics

Interestingly, in order to convince the reviewers of what I was claiming, I had to go back to the very basics of forcing versus feedback to illustrate the mistakes researchers have perpetuated when trying to describe how one can supposedly measure feedbacks in observational data.

Researchers traditionally invoke the hypothetical case of an instantaneous doubling of the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere (2XCO2). That doubling then causes warming, and the warming then causes radiative feedback which acts to either reducing the warming (negative feedback) or amplify the warming (positive feedback). With this hypothetical, idealized 2XCO2 case you can compare the time histories of the resulting warming to the resulting changes in the Earth’s radiative budget, and you can indeed extract an accurate estimate of the feedback.

The trouble is that this hypothetical case has nothing to do with the real world, and can totally mislead us when trying to diagnose feedbacks in the real climate system. This is the first thing we demonstrate in the new paper. In the real world, there are always changes in cloud cover (albedo) occurring, which is a forcing. And that “internal radiative forcing” (our term) is what gives the illusion of positive feedback. In fact, feedback in response to internal radiative forcing cannot even be measured. It is drowned out by the forcing itself.

Feedback in the Real World

As we show in the new paper, the only clear signal of feedback we ever find in the global average satellite data is strongly negative, around 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree C. If this was the feedback operating on the long-term warming from increasing CO2, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming from 2XCO2. (Since we have already experienced this level of warming, it raises the issue of whether some portion — maybe even a majority — of past warming is from natural, rather than anthropogenic, causes.)

Unfortunately, there is no way I have found to demonstrate that this strongly negative feedback is actually occurring on the long time scales involved in anthropogenic global warming. At this point, I think that belief in the high climate sensitivity (positive feedbacks) in the current crop of climate models is a matter of faith, not unbiased science. The models are infinitely adjustable, and modelers stop adjusting when they get model behavior that reinforces their pre-conceived notions.

They aren’t necessarily wrong — just not very thorough in terms of exploring alternative hypotheses. Or maybe they have explored those, and just don’t want to show the rest of the world the results.

Our next paper will do a direct apples-to-apples comparison between the satellite-based feedbacks and the IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks from year-to-year climate variability. Preliminary indications are that the satellite results are outside the envelope of all the IPCC models.

 

Great post, Guillermo.

 

ok then we'll start with the .6 deg c

 

You think what I've been posting is a rant? That isn't a rant; this is a rant:

You don't really want a creative debate, or you would have engaged in one with Alan. Instead you started belittling and insulting him, just as you do anyone else you can't simply drown out with your endless stream of posts. Apparently you don't know what else to do with real live scientists, who can do real live calculations from the data themselves, instead of just cutting and pasting someone else's work.

You don't 'work your own numbers, and draw your own conclusions.' You made up your mind a long time ago. What you spend your time doing instead is hunting for anything that sounds like it might reinforce what you already believe, and pasting it here.

Much of what you post is repetitive; some of it is irrelevant. Some of it has been discredited repeatedly, in this very thread. Some of it you apparently don't understand, because you wrongly post it as supportive of your position.

In between you take a few breaks to call people idiotic, arrogant, brainless and a slew of other names, for not being awed by your brilliance and blindly agreeing with you. Then you complain that the folks you've been insulting are rude.

Here's a tip on the house; no charge for this one: if you want people to be nice, be nice to them. It's really that easy most of the time. "Don't start none, won't be none."

As far as my 'contributing' goes, I toss in an interesting article or reference now and then. But I see no point in trying to outdo you in cutting and pasting. Generally, anything I would post has already been posted anyway.

Instead, this is what I contribute: common sense. When people start irrationally carrying on about AGW being a liberal conspiracy to enslave or kill mankind, and telling us that the vast majority of scientists worldwide are part of the conspiracy, I stand up and say, "********!"

When someone rejects the work of thousands of mainstream scientists and tells us their credentials are meaningless, then repeats what some scientific ignoramus, paid ***** or professional contrarian says instead, I stand up and say, "wait a minute. Why should we believe what this bonehead and a few others say, and assume that all the other scientists in the world are liars and frauds?"

 

Are we supposed to believe this? I've always known that if you want to sell something to a stupid person, you tell him he's the only one in the room smart enough to understand and appreciate it.

But Spencer seems to be kicking that principle of salesmanship up a notch. He's trying to stroke the ego of his entire layman audience. Next, he'll be joining Dr. Phil on the Oprah Show.....

I'll have to go through the rest of that slowly when I have time, and see whether anything Spencer says seems to have merit. But the one statement just jumped out at me.

 

He isn't unerring and all-knowing, but there's nothing wrong with Boston's brain. You and a few others have had to resort to habitually calling him scatterbrained, weasely and a few other epithets, simply because you have no proper answer for him when he torpedoes your hyperbole and grandstanding .

 

GISStimating 1998
Posted on August 29, 2010 by Anthony Watts

By Steve Goddard

h/t to reader “Phil.” who lead me to this discovery.

In a previous article, I discussed how UAH, RSS and HadCrut show 1998 to be the hottest year, while GISS shows 2010 and 2005 to be hotter.

But it wasn’t always like that. GISS used to show 1998 as 0.64 anomaly, which is higher than their current 2005 record of 0.61.

You can see this in Hansen’s graph below, which is dated August 25, 1999


But something “interesting” has happened to 1998 since then. It was given a demotion by GISS from 0.64 to 0.57.



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

The video below shows the changes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Bunw5ecbc&feature=player_embedded

Note that not only was 1998 demoted, but also many other years since 1975 – the start of Tamino’s “modern warming period.” By demoting 1998, they are now able to show a continuous warming trend from 1975 to the present – which RSS, UAH and Had Crut do not show.

Now, here is the real kicker. The graph below appends the post 2000 portion of the current GISS graph to the August 25, 1999 GISS graph. Warming ended in 1998, just as UAH, RSS and Had Crut show.



The image below superimposes Had Crut on the image above. Note that without the post-1999 gymnastics, GISS and Had Crut match quite closely, with warming ending in 1998.


Conclusion : GISS recently modified their pre-2000 historical data, and is now inconsistent with other temperature sets. GISS data now shows a steady warming from 1975-2010, which other data sets do not show. Had GISS not modified their historic data, they would still be consistent with other data sets and would not show warming post-1998. I’ll leave it to the readers to interpret further.

 

Taylor talking to Riccio on "The Bold and the Beatiful"

My wish is world peace

 

Excuse me, but he was the one beginning to scorn me saying I had no idea of what I was doing. So he got what he was asking for. The same with you, when you began insulting me. Don't give yourself 'purity baths'. You are as guilty as any other here of insulting and scorning people.

And, precisely, when I engaged with Alan debating data, demonstrating he was stepping in muddy waters because of his lack of knowledge on climate matters by highlighting his own contradictions, he simply ran off avoiding answering my questions. My aggresiveness had nothing to do with it. That was simply a 'poor player' excuse. I told you: Your 'god' had clay feet.

Apply this to yourself, hypocrit.

 

The real reason of CO2 emmissions cutting in shipping: Fuel price!

The rest is paraphernalia to content politicians and avoid confrontations with false greenies, while receiving from them lots of funds to investigate how to save fuel...mmmm, sorry, I meant 'how to cut CO2 emmissions'.

"Shipping companies have a very strong incentive to reduce their fuel consumption and thus reduce their CO2 emissions: bunker costs represent an increasingly significant proportion of ships’ operational expenses, having increased by about 300% in the last 5 years.

There is every expectation that marine bunker prices will return to the peak levels of 2008. Furthermore, the cost of ships’ fuel is expected to increase by a further 50% as a result of the increased use of (low sulphur) distillate fuel that will follow the implementation of the new IMO rules (MARPOL Annex VI) that will apply globally in Emission Control Areas by 2015."


http://www.shippingandco2.org/industrymeasures.htm

 

I'm really amazed about this guy Schneider and whoever calling themselves scientists saying that kind of things about "catastrophic climate change". Katrina, for instance, had nothing to do with increasing temperatures. As a matter of fact the global cyclone index is presently at its minimums of the last 30 years, as everybody knows and has been posted here repeatedly. And heat waves, droughts and floods are local phenomena not out of the usual if we consider them in the long term and are barely attributable to mean temperature increase. Like it was the case of the last heat wave in Russia, i.e., which is cyclical.

And they mention the 1ºC warming happened in the 20th century, but they should have also explained, to provide a full and impartial explanation, that it happened in two periods, one from 1910 to 1940 and the second from 1970 to 2000, with a 30 years period of not rising temperatures in between, so the origin of such increases cannot be easily attributed to anthropogenic CO2, as we have seen here.

Such behaviour is at least disingenuous and very little 'scientific', let me say.