Climate Change Banter

[AvantHiatus]

That's out of line.

Don't stoke the flames. This is just a personal disagreement between two people. I've been trolled on this forum personally and it's against forum policy to make a second account, much less make a second account to troll people.

 

Sometimes it's super-obvious, like the account has only 1 troll post  and was created a day ago. Yet nothing is ever done about it. 

 

It's respectable that ORH is open-minded and a lenient moderator. Perhaps I should have used different wording here.

[WinterWxLuvr]

I don't take lectures from an incompetent moderator.

You should be able to figure it out ORH.

Here's a thought. Post your credentials and we can compare them to ORH. Then we can get a better handle on who the incompetent one is.

[AvantHiatus]

Friv/Global,

 

I really do enjoy reading/following this forum, and your contributions are surely up there with the best.  Just please try not to use the extreme's when you see things emerging, as they often get muted to things way less than your tone suggests.  A one day run that shows "incredible" warmth...often doesn't verify and it detracts from the quality of the information that you offer.  

 

Keep up the good work and just think about it.  

 

Nut

It is what it is, TGW doesn't control the weather.

[AvantHiatus]

Lockstep with global temperatures in some years like 2010 and 2007 but the connection is weak. Otherwise the overall contour resembles the hiatus.

 

Bluewave, you should probably narrow your domain to May - September. This is the time when arctic temperatures are most impactful for the ice, albeit polar amplification will show up in all seasons and more strongly during the winter.

 

The 0.1C rise was based on the 2013-2014 cold summer era ending and never coming back. You will have intra-annual variability but arctic temperatures should stairstep every 3 years or so from now on.

[stadiumwave]

Lockstep with global temperatures in some years like 2010 and 2007 but the connection is weak. Otherwise the overall contour resembles the hiatus.

Bluewave, you should probably narrow your domain to May - September. This is the time when arctic temperatures are most impactful for the ice, albeit polar amplification will show up in all seasons and more strongly during the winter.

The 0.1C rise was based on the 2013-2014 cold summer era ending and never coming back. You will have intra-annual variability but arctic temperatures should stairstep every 3 years or so from now on.

Lay out in detail why you think this.

[AvantHiatus]

Lay out in detail why you think this.

Should be obvious by September. We will start hitting tipping points in the 2020's without strong, almost impossible mitigation efforts on AGW.

[AvantHiatus]

The summer temperatures are contingent on the melt season. As you can see, the temps dropped off after the record 2012

season an were comparable the last two years to the early 2000's.

 

TEMP.png

A larger drop occured in the early 1990s, we should still expect Arctic warming to continue in earnest.

[AvantHiatus]

The beat goes on, and this was starting from a low point/record cold winter. Right now water temperatures are what they should be in early August.

 

[stadiumwave]

The beat goes on, and this was starting from a low point/record cold winter. Right now water temperatures are what they should be in early August.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/gulf-stream-slowdown-linked-with-sudden-european-cooling.html

[AvantHiatus]

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/gulf-stream-slowdown-linked-with-sudden-european-cooling.html

True story. I don't think the core of the AMOC slowdown has occured yet which is scary. The Eemian did not have 480 co2 equivalent tho, something to keep in mind. We should expect only regional effects from this.

 

This is a nasty brew for sure with some unknown consequences, most likely not very not distant from James Hansen's vision of continent-wide superstorms.

 

A large portion of the AMOC warmth may be simply due to OHC increase.

[The_Global_Warmer]

True story. I don't think the core of the AMOC slowdown has occured yet which is scary. The Eemian did not have 480 co2 equivalent tho, something to keep in mind. We should expect only regional effects from this.

This is a nasty brew for sure with some unknown consequences, most likely not very not distant from James Hansen's vision of continent-wide superstorms.

A large portion of the AMOC warmth may be simply due to OHC increase.

IIRC the NATL OHC has been stagnant or stalled for 15 yrs.

[AvantHiatus]

IIRC the NATL OHC has been stagnant or stalled for 15 yrs.

What about the West Atlantic OHC? Perhaps the two regions are canceling each other out.

[AvantHiatus]

The 0-2000m layer of the Atlantic has begun to warm exponentially.

 

YEAR AO AOse NA NAse SA SAse

2005.500 5.749 0.196 3.606 0.249 2.143 0.307
2006.500 5.875 0.200 3.807 0.129 2.068 0.113
2007.500 5.608 0.192 3.850 0.183 1.757 0.315
2008.500 5.592 0.503 3.530 0.467 2.062 0.136
2009.500 5.537 0.326 3.241 0.264 2.296 0.118
2010.500 5.978 0.226 3.692 0.174 2.286 0.380
2011.500 6.486 0.471 3.903 0.294 2.583 0.242
2012.500 6.375 0.262 3.603 0.171 2.772 0.167
2013.500 7.977 0.408 4.389 0.141 3.588 0.344
2014.500 8.270 0.257 4.451 0.164 3.819 0.165

[LakeEffectKing]

The 0-2000m layer of the Atlantic has begun to warm exponentially.

 

YEAR AO AOse NA NAse SA SAse

2005.500 5.749 0.196 3.606 0.249 2.143 0.307

2006.500 5.875 0.200 3.807 0.129 2.068 0.113

2007.500 5.608 0.192 3.850 0.183 1.757 0.315

2008.500 5.592 0.503 3.530 0.467 2.062 0.136

2009.500 5.537 0.326 3.241 0.264 2.296 0.118

2010.500 5.978 0.226 3.692 0.174 2.286 0.380

2011.500 6.486 0.471 3.903 0.294 2.583 0.242

2012.500 6.375 0.262 3.603 0.171 2.772 0.167

2013.500 7.977 0.408 4.389 0.141 3.588 0.344

2014.500 8.270 0.257 4.451 0.164 3.819 0.165

BS!

[AvantHiatus]

BS!

Possibly, it is a large jump tho.

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

 

3-month 0-2000m average reveals 2015

 

2012.125 5.675 0.251 3.382 0.136 2.294 0.115

2013.125 8.134 0.217 4.125 0.121 4.009 0.096

2014.125 8.404 0.212 4.449 0.121 3.955 0.091

2015.125 8.944 0.217 4.728 0.108 4.216 0.109

 

According to this, North Atlantic OHC has recovered since 2012. 0-700m shows warming as well.

 

2012.125 3.385 0.190 2.270 0.102 1.114 0.087

2013.125 5.264 0.166 2.907 0.091 2.357 0.075

2014.125 5.185 0.163 2.907 0.093 2.278 0.070

2015.125 5.736 0.164 3.210 0.081 2.526 0.083

[stadiumwave]

True story. I don't think the core of the AMOC slowdown has occured yet which is scary. The Eemian did not have 480 co2 equivalent tho, something to keep in mind. We should expect only regional effects from this.

This is a nasty brew for sure with some unknown consequences, most likely not very not distant from James Hansen's vision of continent-wide superstorms.

A large portion of the AMOC warmth may be simply due to OHC increase.

James Hansen has done more harm to climate science's public perception in the U.S. more than any other person. His exaggerated predictions throughout the years that have not come true has contributed to the high % of denialism in this country.

For that reason the harm he has done heavily outways the good. And he has done some good things.

Dr. Hansen is one of the reasons I've become so outspoken about cool, objective thought & language centered around climate change. When discussing concerns & dangers excited, hyped, exaggerated language (when unknown) only creates damage when there is no fruition.

Remember that perception is reality to the public.

[AvantHiatus]

James Hansen has done more harm to climate science's public perception in the U.S. more than any other person. His exaggerated predictions throughout the years that have not come true has contributed to the high % of denialism in this country.

For that reason the harm he has done heavily outways the good. And he has done some good things.

Dr. Hansen is one of the reasons I've become so outspoken about cool, objective thought & language centered around climate change. When discussing concerns & dangers excited, hyped, exaggerated language (when unknown) only creates damage when there is no fruition.

Remember that perception is reality to the public.

I want to believe you. The only example I can think of is this interview from 2009 where he mentions the topic of tipping points. Otherwise, his warnings are usually vague and far out into the future. In other words, no body really knows if he was right, even if they claim to know, which goes back to having a false perception of the climate. No doubt the cold spell in the US had an effect on maintaining people's opinions despite TWCs heoric efforts.

 

In many ways he was right on the money due to 2012 and the recent occurrences in Antarctica involving the collapse of WAIS. FWIW, James Hansen probably knows more about AGW than anybody else in a hollistic sense.

 

In the grand scheme of things, 2013-2014 does not represent the next 5 years and definitely not the next 20 years.

 

 

[FloridaJohn]

James Hansen has done more harm to climate science's public perception in the U.S. more than any other person. His exaggerated predictions throughout the years that have not come true has contributed to the high % of denialism in this country.

 

90% of the public has no idea who James Hansen is.

 

I would be interested in what predictions you are aware of that he made that haven't come true. I find that stuff very interesting.

[chubbs]

James Hansen has done more harm to climate science's public perception in the U.S. more than any other person. His exaggerated predictions throughout the years that have not come true has contributed to the high % of denialism in this country.

For that reason the harm he has done heavily outways the good. And he has done some good things.

Dr. Hansen is one of the reasons I've become so outspoken about cool, objective thought & language centered around climate change. When discussing concerns & dangers excited, hyped, exaggerated language (when unknown) only creates damage when there is no fruition.

Remember that perception is reality to the public.

 

That is a ridiculous assertion.  These predictions made by Hanson in a 1981 paper before global warming was even an issue have proven to be quite accurate. Unfortunately we didn't make much use of them.

 

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981:

 

Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

 

Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

 

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

[ORH_wxman]

That is a ridiculous assertion.  These predictions made by Hanson in a 1981 paper before global warming was even an issue have proven to be quite accurate. Unfortunately we didn't make much use of them.

 

 

Hansen's peer reviewed stuff is mostly good. (as are most other scientist's peer reviewed work)

 

It is his public activism and his hyperbole in outlets such as senate testimony or just to the media in general are what has been counterproductive IMHO. An example was his 1986 testimony where he warned of a 2 to 4 degree rise in temps in the next 20 years. Or his more recent claims of 5-10 meter SLR by 2100 (even suggesting up to 25m to senate in 2007)...while the latter isn't verifiable yet of course, it is an outlandish claim given the rest of the literature. His account of NYC's west side highway being underwater due to SLR by 2030. His predictions for strong or super el Ninos (one was as recently as 2011 when everyone else was predicting a La Nina).

 

All of that is stuff the public/media hears and latches onto. It's unfortunate it has to be that way, but only climate hobbyists and other scientists actually read the literature. The rest only read the media headlines or the hyperbole directly from the scientist's mouth. Hansen has been an activist and while I don't doubt his sincerity in his cause, it does create a less than objective image for the science he represents. People like us who follow climate rigorously can just say "well ignore that junk and focus on the literature"....but that can't be said of most of the population.

 

I don't blame all of it on Hansen of course...I think the media has been the worst offender.

[AvantHiatus]

 

 

5-10 meter SLR

It's still barely in the realm of possibility. That would be an insane acceleration tho and that kind of meltwater injection would definitely shut down ocean circulations and end civilization across the board. It also requires that we stay on business as usual indefinitely which is unlikely.

 

The CO2 atmospheric level would be something insane like 600ppm by 2080.

[stadiumwave]

Hansen's peer reviewed stuff is mostly good. (as are most other scientist's peer reviewed work)

It is his public activism and his hyperbole in outlets such as senate testimony or just to the media in general are what has been counterproductive IMHO. An example was his 1986 testimony where he warned of a 2 to 4 degree rise in temps in the next 20 years. Or his more recent claims of 5-10 meter SLR by 2100 (even suggesting up to 25m to senate in 2007)...while the latter isn't verifiable yet of course, it is an outlandish claim given the rest of the literature. His account of NYC's west side highway being underwater due to SLR by 2030. His predictions for strong or super el Ninos (one was as recently as 2011 when everyone else was predicting a La Nina).

All of that is stuff the public/media hears and latches onto. It's unfortunate it has to be that way, but only climate hobbyists and other scientists actually read the literature. The rest only read the media headlines or the hyperbole directly from the scientist's mouth. Hansen has been an activist and while I don't doubt his sincerity in his cause, it does create a less than objective image for the science he represents. People like us who follow climate rigorously can just say "well ignore that junk and focus on the literature"....but that can't be said of most of the population.

I don't blame all of it on Hansen of course...I think the media has been the worst offender.

This is exactly what I was referring to with my post. I couldnt have explained amy better than you just did.

Just like I had said, Hansen has done some good work...I would never deny that. With that said it's the things he has said in congressional testimonies & media outlets that is exaggerated, bogus alarmism at its finest that has feed denialism. Why? Because those things he says sincerely hoping to move public action through fear backfires when it doesn't happen.

Most of the general public indeed does not know Hansen...but they know the headlines many of his past remarks have created.

Hansen was AL Gore's prophet in much of his dribble.

So, again...I applaud the sincere efforts, I just think it's has proven to be a totally wrong approach in influencing public perception.

[chubbs]

Hansen's peer reviewed stuff is mostly good. (as are most other scientist's peer reviewed work)

 

It is his public activism and his hyperbole in outlets such as senate testimony or just to the media in general are what has been counterproductive IMHO. An example was his 1986 testimony where he warned of a 2 to 4 degree rise in temps in the next 20 years. Or his more recent claims of 5-10 meter SLR by 2100 (even suggesting up to 25m to senate in 2007)...while the latter isn't verifiable yet of course, it is an outlandish claim given the rest of the literature. His account of NYC's west side highway being underwater due to SLR by 2030. His predictions for strong or super el Ninos (one was as recently as 2011 when everyone else was predicting a La Nina).

 

All of that is stuff the public/media hears and latches onto. It's unfortunate it has to be that way, but only climate hobbyists and other scientists actually read the literature. The rest only read the media headlines or the hyperbole directly from the scientist's mouth. Hansen has been an activist and while I don't doubt his sincerity in his cause, it does create a less than objective image for the science he represents. People like us who follow climate rigorously can just say "well ignore that junk and focus on the literature"....but that can't be said of most of the population.

 

I don't blame all of it on Hansen of course...I think the media has been the worst offender.

I wasn't familiar with Hanson's testimony so I googled and came up with the document linked below based on his 2007 testimony. Its not nearly as bad as you suggest. Its very scientific in tone - unlikely to cause a reaction in anyone except those already of a skeptical bent. His temperature projections are close to consensus. Some of his effect projections are high end but I wouldn't call them outlandish. He says SLR could be 2 meters in 100 years due to mainly to WAIS.. At the time this was quite aggressive.Since then however much more has been published on ice sheet instability and WAIS in particular. His projection is still high end but it is moving into the range of possible outcomes.

 

Blaming Hanson for climate denial/skepticism is a big exaggeration. I discuss climate with many skeptics. They mainly stick close to the denier talking points:: the data is fudged, the scientists are in cahoots to get grant money,  temperatures haven't increased in 18 years, climate has always varied etc.. No one ever mentions Jim Hanson. For the most part people believe the story lines that fit in with their preconceived views.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3720

[AvantHiatus]

This is exactly what I was referring to with my post. I couldnt have explained amy better than you just did.

Just like I had said, Hansen has done some good work...I would never deny that. With that said it's the things he has said in congressional testimonies & media outlets that is exaggerated, bogus alarmism at its finest that has feed denialism. Why? Because those things he says sincerely hoping to move public action through fear backfires when it doesn't happen.

Most of the general public indeed does not know Hansen...but they know the headlines many of his past remarks have created.

Hansen was AL Gore's prophet in much of his dribble.

So, again...I applaud the sincere efforts, I just think it's has proven to be a totally wrong approach in influencing public perception.

Alarmism is more truthful than manipulating someone into a new paradigm for reasons other than to save the planet. I am agreement with the green crowd tho. A more sustainable world is a more human world and people should be eager to reform society in the absence of immediate threats from AGW.

 

Alarmism is just the branch of explaining the implications of said facts. The general public is not informed enough to understand implications on every subject and western civilization encourages specialization, preventing people from seeing the big picture.

[ORH_wxman]

I wasn't familiar with Hanson's testimony so I googled and came up with the document linked below based on his 2007 testimony. Its not nearly as bad as you suggest. Its very scientific in tone - unlikely to cause a reaction in anyone except those already of a skeptical bent. His temperature projections are close to consensus. Some of his effect projections are high end but I wouldn't call them outlandish. He says SLR could be 2 meters in 100 years due to mainly to WAIS.. At the time this was quite aggressive.Since then however much more has been published on ice sheet instability and WAIS in particular. His projection is still high end but it is moving into the range of possible outcomes.

 

Blaming Hanson for climate denial/skepticism is a big exaggeration. I discuss climate with many skeptics. They mainly stick close to the denier talking points:: the data is fudged, the scientists are in cahoots to get grant money,  temperatures haven't increased in 18 years, climate has always varied etc.. No one ever mentions Jim Hanson. For the most part people believe the story lines that fit in with their preconceived views.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3720

 

 

I agree, but his hyperbolic tone with the media is not without consequences. The discussion was hinging on the connection between denialism and alarmist rhetoric. While saying Hansen is to blame is surely hyperbolic in it's own right, exonerating failed alarmist predictions is also not completely accurate IMHO.

 

You are still trying to tie in his peer reviewed official work, which is generally good. If you read most of his testimonies they are pretty good too...but again, where do you think the media and headliners get those 2-4C predictions from 1986 or the 10 meter SLR? They get it from his testimony. His west side highway under water while talking to the author of a book. That is all stuff the media grabs and the public hears about.

 

As mentioned above, I think the media is more to blame than hyperbole from Hansen. However, I generally still think that scientists participating in activism can compromise the objective image of the science they represent.

[ORH_wxman]

Alarmism is more truthful than manipulating someone into a new paradigm for reasons other than to save the planet. I am agreement with the green crowd tho. A more sustainable world is a more human world and people should be eager to reform society in the absence of immediate threats from AGW.

 

Alarmism is just the branch of explaining the implications of said facts. The general public is not informed enough to understand implications on every subject and western civilization encourages specialization, preventing people from seeing the big picture.

 

Bad science is bad science regardless of whether any of us thinks the ends justify the means.

[chubbs]

I agree, but his hyperbolic tone with the media is not without consequences. The discussion was hinging on the connection between denialism and alarmist rhetoric. While saying Hansen is to blame is surely hyperbolic in it's own right, exonerating failed alarmist predictions is also not completely accurate IMHO.

 

You are still trying to tie in his peer reviewed official work, which is generally good. If you read most of his testimonies they are pretty good too...but again, where do you think the media and headliners get those 2-4C predictions from 1986 or the 10 meter SLR? They get it from his testimony. His west side highway under water while talking to the author of a book. That is all stuff the media grabs and the public hears about.

 

As mentioned above, I think the media is more to blame than hyperbole from Hansen. However, I generally still think that scientists participating in activism can compromise the objective image of the science they represent.

I can see where it would be misleading if snippets were taken out of context. These posts stimulated me to read portions of his 1981 paper. While portions are dated and missed the mark, many of his 1981 predictions are  very accurate. His discussion of WAIS could have been written today but was way ahead of his time. It would be the height of irony if his warning of a WAIS collapse turns out to be correct - and yet leads to inaction per the theory outlined above

[The_Global_Warmer]

Possibly, it is a large jump tho.

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

3-month 0-2000m average reveals 2015

2012.125 5.675 0.251 3.382 0.136 2.294 0.115

2013.125 8.134 0.217 4.125 0.121 4.009 0.096

2014.125 8.404 0.212 4.449 0.121 3.955 0.091

2015.125 8.944 0.217 4.728 0.108 4.216 0.109

According to this, North Atlantic OHC has recovered since 2012. 0-700m shows warming as well.

2012.125 3.385 0.190 2.270 0.102 1.114 0.087

2013.125 5.264 0.166 2.907 0.091 2.357 0.075

2014.125 5.185 0.163 2.907 0.093 2.278 0.070

2015.125 5.736 0.164 3.210 0.081 2.526 0.083

Where did you pull that from?

I'd love to look at all of the basins

[AvantHiatus]

Where did you pull that from?

I'd love to look at all of the basins

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

 

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

 

All basins are available. Ocean heat is just exploding everywhere it seems.

[stadiumwave]

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

All basins are available. Ocean heat is just exploding everywhere it seems.

And you smile like that's what you want...At least now we know your slant