Good blog post- Chuck Doswell

[Cheeznado]

http://cadiiitalk.bl...us-science.html

Encapsulates my thinking to a tee.

[WeatherRusty]

http://cadiiitalk.bl...us-science.html

Encapsulates my thinking to a tee.

How much scientific knowledge could be claimed if there were no "scientific consensus"? The things we know with the very most confidence represent consensus science, or the predominant thinking at the present time. Such is the case with the wide ranging consensus of practicing scientists that the Earth is warming and mankind's activities are largely the reason for that warming. Because we are confident of why and how it is that mankind is causing the warming, we can be quite confident that if nothing changes in a significant way that the warming trend will continue decades and centuries into the future.

[BethesdaWX]

By "climate denier", I certainly hope he is referring (only) to those who deny that CO2 is a GHG and is warming the planet at least slightly. The only "conesnsus" on the matter is that CO2 has contributed to at least a fraction of our warming...that it is a GHG, and the more we pump out, CO2's impact on the climate system will assert itself.

Me, in accepting these basic physics, certainly does not put me in the "denier" group. Specifically "ignorance" emerges when Solar Driven Cloud Cover changes, Stratospheric ozone depletion, and uncertainty in the mixing ability of the oceans, is simply ignored, and we hear "the science is settled, CO2 is leading to our doom".

If Mr. Doswell would refer to me, & any other reasonable skeptic as a "Denier", then there is no reason to give him any credibility on the matter.

[AtticaFanatica]

I don't see anything controversial in that post, pretty basic (but good) stuff.

[ORH_wxman]

I don't see anything controversial in that post, pretty basic (but good) stuff.

What he says is true, but kind of useless for most of the climate debate controversy because most realistic skeptics believe AGW exists, they just disagree on the magnitude of it. (not saying his rant was intended for the actual debate, but posting it here implies it was)

[AtticaFanatica]

What he says is true, but kind of useless for most of the climate debate controversy because most realistic skeptics believe AGW exists, they just disagree on the magnitude of it. (not saying his rant was intended for the actual debate, but posting it here implies it was)/>

Agreed.

[tacoman25]

What he says is true, but kind of useless for most of the climate debate controversy because most realistic skeptics believe AGW exists, they just disagree on the magnitude of it. (not saying his rant was intended for the actual debate, but posting it here implies it was)

The only problem I have with what he says is that, in typical fashion, he divides the debate into polar opposites (the scientific consensus vs. "climate deniers"), and then calls the other side morons. A very simplistic look at a complex issue.

[ORH_wxman]

The only problem I have with what he says is that, in typical fashion, he divides the debate into polar opposites (the scientific consensus vs. "climate deniers"), and then calls the other side morons. A very simplistic look at a complex issue.

Well that's kind of Chuck's personality, lol. I've met him before. He's pretty blunt.

[Cheeznado]

What he says is true, but kind of useless for most of the climate debate controversy because most realistic skeptics believe AGW exists, they just disagree on the magnitude of it. (not saying his rant was intended for the actual debate, but posting it here implies it was)

I posted it because there are a number of folks here that do think that AGW does not exist- and post articles from not reasonable skeptics, but yes, deniers- D'aleo, Spann, Bastardi- who ARE saying basically that the warming is not happening, we will be going into a cooling phase soon etc. A large majority of the Republican candidates for President are on record saying that AGW is a hoax etc. AGW is here, it is real, there are reasonable doubts as to the extent (although in the interest of honesty I am in the "its pretty serious" camp), but we should put to rest the notion that there is really any credible scientific evidence that AGW is not occurring.

[Clifford]

... we will be going into a cooling phase soon etc.

YES,

Whatever labels you want to use. Climate Realists... or whatever.

If we have warming, it is likely following a cyclical pattern.

Units intentionally left off.

The green line essentially represents the period from 1990 to 2000, which has the maximum temperature increase, and seems to be the basis for predictions from the AGW proponents.

The blue line represents the likely temperature trends... and yes, we are likely to have a leveling of temperatures, or a decrease of temperatures in the near future.

And, assuming there is actually some global warming, the red line represents the "true trend".

We also have little understanding if and when a fulminant ice age will return, how rapid the onset will be, or if our actions today are capable of preventing or postponing it. All we know is that we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years which was preceded by multiple cycles of nearly 100,000 years of very cold weather..

The other question is whether we should expect the predicted "Worst Case" consequences, or if the true effects of Global Warming will be much more mild, at least for most people. Keep in mind, animals such as the Great Auk became extinct, not because of Global Warming, but because they were hunted to extinction by Humans.

[BethesdaWX]

I posted it because there are a number of folks here that do think that AGW does not exist- and post articles from not reasonable skeptics, but yes, deniers- D'aleo, Spann, Bastardi- who ARE saying basically that the warming is not happening, we will be going into a cooling phase soon etc. A large majority of the Republican candidates for President are on record saying that AGW is a hoax etc. AGW is here, it is real, there are reasonable doubts as to the extent (although in the interest of honesty I am in the "its pretty serious" camp), but we should put to rest the notion that there is really any credible scientific evidence that AGW is not occurring.

We can easily go into a very deep cooling phase with or without AGW if the low sensitivity camp is correct, or even if the moderate sensitivity camp is correct. If you think there is something silly or unreasonable about that, then I'm not sure what basis you have to express yourself as Pro AGW, since basic physics apply in all realms of our physical reality.

Our warming trend began around 1700, so did sea level rise and glacier shortening. Sea level rise has not accelerated since it began over 300yrs ago. Looking at changes in the output of the sun, PDO, CO2, etc, don't give any reason for it. The only aspect that seems to correlate somewhat ok is the original AA-index, (solar wind/geomagentism), & what would result in GCR, Cloud, & Stratospheric Ozone concentration changes.

Of course, our CFC emissions reducing Stratospheric Ozone in a period of high solar activity/Geomegnetism was a recipe for a drastic energy gain by the climate system, and equilibrium will still not have been reached if high sensitivity solutions are correct (long response time, amplified changes).

Just to put in perspective, a 1% change in low cloud cover equates to 0.6W/m^2 RF change, and just over Less that 3% less LLGCC over a 30yr timespan would, indeed, equate to 1.8W/m^2 RF increase, more than CO2's 1.6W/m^2 RF since 1850. Now imagine what a 5-7% change could do.... Has it happened? Very likely so. Can it happen again? We don't know. Is it happening now? We don't know.

Not to mention OLR measurements from NOAA show that the decade of the 2000's featured, on avg, 4-4.5W/m^2 more tropical/ML OLR than the 1990's, right when we saw the step change in global temps, indicating that not only is the climate system very insensitive to changes in OLR if the measurements are correct, (GCM's may be mishandling of the ocean processes), but that much of the change in RF likely is due to more ISR getting to the LT, surface, oceans, etc. This can result from increased UVA/UVB rays into the climate from stratospheric ozone depletion, cloud changes, changes in how the ocean releases heat over time, etc.

And yet we hear all the time from politically driven agenda wackos that "the science is settled"...Bull$hit.

Done with my rant.

[AtticaFanatica]

tl;dr

Done with my rant.

You should just change that to your user name.

[LocoAko]

You should just change that to your user name.

[BethesdaWX]

You should just change that to your user name.

good one

hush

[WeatherRusty]

YES,

Whatever labels you want to use. Climate Realists... or whatever.

If we have warming, it is likely following a cyclical pattern.

Units intentionally left off.

The green line essentially represents the period from 1990 to 2000, which has the maximum temperature increase, and seems to be the basis for predictions from the AGW proponents.

The blue line represents the likely temperature trends... and yes, we are likely to have a leveling of temperatures, or a decrease of temperatures in the near future.

And, assuming there is actually some global warming, the red line represents the "true trend".

We also have little understanding if and when a fulminant ice age will return, how rapid the onset will be, or if our actions today are capable of preventing or postponing it. All we know is that we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years which was preceded by multiple cycles of nearly 100,000 years of very cold weather..

The other question is whether we should expect the predicted "Worst Case" consequences, or if the true effects of Global Warming will be much more mild, at least for most people. Keep in mind, animals such as the Great Auk became extinct, not because of Global Warming, but because they were hunted to extinction by Humans.

The red line is all that matters to AGW and those who understand the science. The blue line is toted by skeptics as proof that AGW is nothing to worry about, ie. it's all or mostly natural variability. The green line can be used inappropriately by the ignorant on both sides.

The great ice ages seem to be caused by small solar irradiation shifts due to very slow changes in Earth's orbital parameters such as the obliquity of its orbit and the angle of its spin axis. These will not favor a return to ice age conditions for several 10s of thousands of years which is unusually long, but such is the case this time. We seem to be "blessed" with an unusually long period of naturally caused climate stability, yet we have up until now been inadvertently been disrupting the fine balance in radiative forcing which was making this possible. Now that we know what we are doing, the excuse of ignorance no longer applies. Sort of like kicking ourselves out of the Garden of Eden!

[BethesdaWX]

If the red line is predominately co2 caused/driven, then it would be a bigger issue. Most skeptics I know do not use the 30yr ocean phase as an excuse to dismiss agw, but instead tackle the red line and it's drivers...these include co2 and what I mentioned 2 posts ago in reply to cheeze man.

Skeptics who argue the pdo controls all are a minority and are not representative of the greater skeptic population, so for any blogger to say otherwise should not have any credibility in my opinion.