Climate Change Banter

[StudentOfClimatology]

Don't waste your time responding. A full blown argument will ensue and someone will get banned. SOC is a contrarian, and that would be a generous title. Unfortunately for him, I cannot offer a benefit of the doubt due to past fiasco.

Looks like your sarcasm detector is broken. Skier was agreeing with me.

Blizzard1024 was using the highly-uncertain ISCCP dataset to argue for a net-negative low-cloud feedback to CO2 forcing, which is both risky and in contradiction to the vast majority of literature on the matter.

I'm tired of babysitting you, dude. Learn to comprehend what you read instead of letting your imagination take over.

[AvantHiatus]

Apologies for trolling you here, but when we can't agree on basic facts I have very bad outbursts over these issues in particular. You seem to study climate science with a distinct 'coldness' and you never have the balls to make any calls, thus you could never be wrong.

 

I do take it seriously, this entire forum should probably be deleted if it will harbor skeptic views, it will become a extremely sensitive subject in a decade or so due to unaffected regions simply not caring. Good example would be the emerging political rift between North and South Florida over legislation.

 

As Michael Mann would say, it's an open and shut debate, that we need not discuss. It's like discussing why the sky is blue.

 

With that said, I'm finished with all the strong language and activism. It goes againist the grain of who I am in IRL and I don't need more stress in my life. I can live with myself knowing I made an attempt to settle the scales. 

 

I now realize why nobody reads this forum, it's all a bunch of rumination among people who like tracking numbers and statistics. We live in a empty, dead society and you will find me off the grid very soon and you won't ever have to worry about my posts ever again.

 

Now is the time for reform tho, if it is to occur at all. We are at a key juncture and tipping points can only be quantified in the rear-view mirror.

[AvantHiatus]

Atlantic Ocean CO2 uptake reduced by weakening of the meridional overturning circulation

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1680.html

 

 

 

Uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean declined rapidly between 1990 and 2006. This reduction in carbon dioxide uptake was related to warming at the sea surface, which—according to model simulations—coincided with a reduction in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. The extent to which the slowdown of this circulation system—which transports warm surface waters to the northern high latitudes, and cool deep waters south—contributed to the reduction in carbon uptake has remained uncertain. Here, we use data on the oceanic transport of volume, heat and carbon dioxide to track carbon dioxide uptake in the subtropical and subpolar regions of the North Atlantic Ocean over the past two decades. We separate anthropogenic carbon from natural carbon by assuming that the latter corresponds to a pre-industrial atmosphere, whereas the remaining is anthropogenic. We find that the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide—released by human activities—occurred almost exclusively in the subtropical gyre. In contrast, natural carbon dioxide uptake—which results from natural Earth system processes—dominated in the subpolar gyre. We attribute the weakening of contemporary carbon dioxide uptake in the subpolar North Atlantic to a reduction in the natural component. We show that the slowdown of the meridional overturning circulation was largely responsible for the reduction in carbon uptake, through a reduction of oceanic heat loss to the atmosphere, and for the concomitant decline in anthropogenic CO2 storage in subpolar waters.

[AvantHiatus]

[ineedsnow]

Not sure why you would ever use the long range gfs when trying to make a point its kind of sad!

[AvantHiatus]

That is why it was posted in banter, even that is anomalous for 384hr GFS.

[LakeEffectKing]

That is why it was posted in banter, even that is anomalous for 384hr GFS.

Which is even more the reason to NOT post it at all...it makes you look silly. Operational models don't have any "climate change/CO2" parameter in them...the model doesn't "see" climate change...thus it's output at 384 hours is non-related, regardless of the degree of anomaly....

[CAPE]

I tend to stay out of climate change debates. This is my first time venturing into one of these threads. So please, dont jump me

 

My simplistic view- "Climate" is average weather over some time period. One accepted definition of a period over which we can assess climate for a given region, is 30 years, per the WMO. I believe the inference wrt to climate change is that the industrial age and associated pollution is influencing climate. If we look at the average daily high and low temps, average snowfall, etc for say DC, over the past 30 years, and then the 30 year period prior to that, and then again the 30 year period prior to that, what does the data show? I think everyone(or maybe not) acknowledges that we have polluted the planet over the past 100 years, so the only questions with regard to impact on climate should be to what extent and over how much time. I don't think we have these answers, thus the speculation and debate. What perturbs me are the people that couldn't do a simple heat balance calculation, professing to know anything about such things on a global scale. Unfortunately there is no way to separate ignorance, presumptuousness, and politics from the science.

[AvantHiatus]

Which is even more the reason to NOT post it at all...it makes you look silly. Operational models don't have any "climate change/CO2" parameter in them...the model doesn't "see" climate change...thus it's output at 384 hours is non-related, regardless of the degree of anomaly....

You are emotionally invested, but in the wrong direction....

 

Good call CAPE, many denialists and skeptics do not consider CO2 a pollutant tho at least in the traditional sense. (Well-founded or a distraction from the greatest issue of our time?)

[The_Global_Warmer]

Incredible when you get a puppet master together with delusional people.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/27/very-brief-el-nino-update-end-of-april-2015/#comments

Joe Bastardi:

I would also look for a MAJOR flip in the coming 3 years to a nasty la nina, and with the amo turning cold, the drop in global temps after this current warmer period should take them down further than post 07/10 ensos. I would suggest a close look at the evolution of the SST GLOBALLY in the late 1950s and early 60s for a similar situation.

cheers to all

[AvantHiatus]

The valleys are La Ninas. That is because El Ninos and La Ninas come in pairs. They alternate due to the fact that they are part of an harmonic oscillation (ENSO) of ocean water from side to side in the Pacific. It has been in existence since the Panamanian Seaway closed. Periodically you get ignorant people like Hansen talking of things like “El Nino-like Pliocene.” You cannot use part of an oscillation to set the climate of a geologic era. To learn more read my book “What Warming?”

 

 

 

To the best of my knowledge, once things get moving in force they will be slow to respond to opposite forcings or completely overwhelm them. The cooling in the North Atlantic is already in full force and global temps haven't responded and Europe had its warmest winter ever. If anything it makes the situation worse for everyone in terms of sensible impacts.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The blaming ninos for the warming while at the same time for over a century Nina's bring no cooling.

Folks are already blaming el nino for the warmth explosion of 2014/15.

We are only now seeing the nino reach any consistency.

Those nino 3/4 from last fall were very far West base. It was a pos neutral touching weak weak nino at times.

That didn't really change until the end of March.

The nino has come to life fast.

But the subsurface has barely begun to make an impact.

So right now ENSO 3 and 4 are being impacted.

That will shift West and mostly impact enso 4. But it will also reinforce the subsurface warm pool.

Then further East enso 1-3 is going to see a MASSIVE jump in SSTA.

That's nasty.

This thing is about to go ham.

Oh yeah look West of Australia and the rest of the Indian ocean.

Lol wth.

[AvantHiatus]

That is caused by the heat-pump to Antarctica/Arctic going beserke and fooking up the hemispheric energy balance. It has been a bizarre year thus far between the Major Hurricane spike and Sydney floods.

[AvantHiatus]

[AvantHiatus]

Dafuq?

[The_Global_Warmer]

New version 6 beta of the UAH MSU dataset has been released....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/

It is now in line with the RSS. Both datasets show significant cooling since 2010....like the CVSv2. Also no statistically significant warming since January 1997 (UAH) or December 1996 (RSS).... almost 19 years. These datasets both show a major pause in any warming.

You are a complete disgrace to that redtag.

You can't be this delusional so you are deliberately dishonest.

Because you don't have the intestinal fortitude to be honest.

This forum should banish redtags.

And use blue tags for degreed climotologists and some special tag for like geologists and glaciologists and so on.

But blizzard and many other Meteorologists have proven beyond doubt that it means nothing.

But its perceived with instant credibility.

And in this case that is very decieving.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

You are a complete disgrace to that redtag.

You can't be this delusional so you are deliberately dishonest.

Because you don't have the intestinal fortitude to be honest.

This forum should banish redtags.

And use blue tags for degreed climotologists and some special tag for like geologists and glaciologists and so on.

But blizzard and many other Meteorologists have proven beyond doubt that it means nothing.

But its perceived with instant credibility.

And in this case that is very decieving.

 

Get a grip... Please. Give the man the respect he deserves, even if you don't agree with his comments.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Get a grip... Please. Give the man the respect he deserves, even if you don't agree with his comments.

His deliberate intellectual dishonesty deserves no respect.

There is no excuse.

[nflwxman]

Having a redtag in here doesn't mean much other than the fact you are scientist.  Climatology and Meteorology are very different fields.  The software used is quite different the variables analyzed are quite different.  The only thing that really links them is the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

 

There are extremely talented meteorologists and weather hobbyists in here that inexplicably deny that global warming is problem.  

[StudentOfClimatology]

There is no "climate science" degree..the atmospheric science degree is full spectrum. Additional degrees in physics and/or mathematics are helpful.

[AvantHiatus]

Climate science requires a unique type of person, one who can crunch the data and make broad-sweeping systematic interpretations and build a puzzle from scratch.

 

Many suffer from a low field of view, meaning that they fail to pick up on things like the nuances of carbon cycles and albedo loss caused by algae blooms. Just two examples of how complex the system is.

 

Nobody really knows where we are going 100%, to claim otherwise would be arrogant.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Climate science requires a unique type of person, one who can crunch the data and make broad-sweeping systematic interpretations and build a puzzle from scratch.

Not a certain type of person..a certain type of education. There are many potential deviations and moving parts within the realm of atmospheric science. The fundamentals are still the same, though.

[AvantHiatus]

Not a certain type of person..a certain type of education. There are many potential deviations and moving parts within the realm of atmospheric science. The fundamentals are still the same, though.

I would not be able to succeed in a traditional masters in science path. Regardless, my biggest strength is gathering/connecting information others have built and I believe I do this better than most.

 

I think I understand the climate system better than most, especially versus someone who only holds a mathematical degree, but it was accomplished on my own time and on my terms. I believe self-education is the new frontier, especially with the rising costs of college.

 

Everyone has their place in this field of study. I posted about educating/giving internet to impoverished African Americans in the PR forum and got slammed by everyone for being racist. It's not a one-way street, lol.

 

My goal here is to make it easier for people without credentials to have a voice, because they should be valued to some degree depending on what they can deliver.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Having a redtag in here doesn't mean much other than the fact you are scientist. Climatology and Meteorology are very different fields. The software used is quite different the variables analyzed are quite different. The only thing that really links them is the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

There are extremely talented meteorologists and weather hobbyists in here that inexplicably deny that global warming is problem.

The guy expresses a genius level of understanding of math, physics, and general reality.

Then pulls this BS with CFS when he knows its bunk.

He flat out knows and won't stop.

[blizzard1024]

You are a complete disgrace to that redtag.

You can't be this delusional so you are deliberately dishonest.

Because you don't have the intestinal fortitude to be honest.

This forum should banish redtags.

And use blue tags for degreed climotologists and some special tag for like geologists and glaciologists and so on.

But blizzard and many other Meteorologists have proven beyond doubt that it means nothing.

But its perceived with instant credibility.

And in this case that is very decieving.

 

You are a complete disgrace to the field of atmospheric science. You have NO clue what goes into forecasting. Climate scientists are forecasting the future like meteorologists as they use computer models and observational data. We are faced with conflicting observational data EVERY day and we look at conflicting models everyday. We disagree with each other often and it remains PROFESSIONAL in the meteorology world. In the climate world if you don't jump on the bandwagon you are discredited by name calling etc. I wish I could debate you in person about climate change. I would totally shred you to pieces from the radiative transfer equations, atmospheric processes, cloud variations, albedo, glacial cycles, ocean currents and how climate models work.... you wouldn't stand a chance pal.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You are a complete disgrace to the field of atmospheric science. You have NO clue what goes into forecasting. Climate scientists are forecasting the future like meteorologists as they use computer models and observational data. We are faced with conflicting observational data EVERY day and we look at conflicting models everyday. We disagree with each other often and it remains PROFESSIONAL in the meteorology world. In the climate world if you don't jump on the bandwagon you are discredited by name calling etc. I wish I could debate you in person about climate change. I would totally shred you to pieces from the radiative transfer equations, atmospheric processes, cloud variations, albedo, glacial cycles, ocean currents and how climate models work.... you wouldn't stand a chance pal.

You can do all that.

But without intellectual honesty it doesn't matter

[AvantHiatus]

You can do all that.

But without intellectual honesty it doesn't matter

 

That exchange was like a snapshot of industrial civilization.

[blizzard1024]

You can do all that.

But without intellectual honesty it doesn't matter

 

So you are saying that I am not being intellectually honest??? really....  wow. You have nerve.

[AvantHiatus]

No other poster on this forum responds so poorly to criticism. Every response is hate laden and just flat out uncomfortable to read, you should work on that and I know you can figure it out given your immense intelligence.

[nflwxman]

Blizzard, you know the CFSv2 is not meant to be used for climate trends.  NOAA, which runs the reanalysis dataset, unequivocally documents that fact in the peer reviewed paper about the data set.  Joe Bastardi and co are CLEARLY misusing it for decadal trends.

 

I'll give you a meteorology analogy- Using the CFSv2 for climate trends is like trying to extrapolate an 84 hour NAM run for a snowstorm 5 days out.  It's not what the model is intended for.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1

 

 

 

The direct measure surface datasets (GISS, HadCrut4, NOAA, and JMA) all have much lower uncertainty than the reanalysis or satellite data.  Thus, those datasets should be the bellweather of climate change statistics and research.   I don't really know what else to say on this topic at this point.