Loading ...Global Warming
Another Comment buried in a Post below that I would like to highlight :
I learned a lot from this short essay and it has opened my eyes as my take has been this is all contrived for political opportunity.
The diversity and quality of Contributors here is astounding !
……………………..
Northstar
June 29, 2017 – 5:23 am at 5:23 am
Pedro, you said ‘Pulling out of Paris was smart. AGW is a hoax (although climate change is real and perpetual — its just not CO2), so carbon taxes are all politics/$ skimming and zero science.’
I’m afraid I cannot let that pass uncorrected. There are many times that you hear stuff discussed and you also hear facts and figures thrown backwards and forwards to support both sides of an argument, but unless you have an intimate knowledge of the subject you really don’t know who to believe. I do have an intimate knowledge of the weather – I’ve been a professional Meteorologist for one of the worlds leading forecast and research centres since 1987.
What you can argue about (if you like), is why the worlds climate is warming at the moment, and how long it will continue to warm. You can also argue about the cause. What you cannot argue about is the fact that it is happening. The evidence is everywhere and it is conclusive. I can honestly put my hand on my heart and say that in all my 30 years experience, I have never met anyone in the meteorological community who has an agenda (I cannot speak for the politicians). Political parties come and go, but the science that we are doing is continuous and we have absolutely no incentive to do anything other than speak the truth. It makes absolutely no difference to us, our jobs or the future of the meteorological professionals whether our world is warming cooling or remaining stable. We all have to share this world and all of my colleagues just want to be able to use the knowledge, expertise and computing power at our disposal to better understand our weather, climate and any possible future problems we may have to face.
We all know the amazing leap in technology that has taken place in the last 20 or 30 years and that has enabled us to get a much better insight into the implications of our selfish actions. You really can’t deplete the Earths resources and pump damaging gases into the atmosphere and expect it to have no effect whatsoever.
Here are just a few very simple statements of fact. As a professional in this field, who knows where these numbers come from and the way they are measured, recorded and calculated, all I can say is that I promise you they are reliable…
There are 4 main greenhouse gases (gases known to act in a way that traps heat on our planet), these are water vapour, Methane, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide. Water vapour (clouds) are of course a natural and desirable greenhouse gas. Since approximately 1800 Methane in the atmosphere has increased from around 700 parts per million (ppm) to at least 2000 ppm, CO2 has increased from around 900 ppm to at least 1800 ppm and Nitrous Oxide from 800 ppm (approx) to at least 1200 ppm. Can we reasonably expect this to have no effect ?
Since the mid 1800’s average global surface temperature has increased by over one degree Celsius. If we don’t stop it before we rise another degree, the impacts will be very large.
Since the early 1990’s global sea level has risen by about 8cm (current rate of change is over 3mm per year and increasing). Why ? The seas are filling up. Why ? The rising global temperatures are even greater in the Arctic and Antarctic.
Back to my earlier point. You can argue why and you can argue about how much hotter it will eventually get. You cannot deny it’s happening. We aren’t just predicting it like we were 20 years ago – it’s actually happened, we are measuring it, and it is going to continue. The point at which it stops, will depend on how well or badly we look after our planet and its atmosphere.
…………………………………
The following chart is posted here on request fro pedro de leon
His comments regarding this chart will be in the comments section
I appreciate your comments, especially as a professional in the field.
I don’t doubt your sincerity for a moment.
I concur climate change is ongoing. Has been throughout the earth’s history.
I disagree on many of your other points.
There are really only three essential questions:
Is the planet heating up to threatening levels?
Is mankind a principal cause of that change?
And is it advisable to spend trillions to reverse those changes?
Paraphrasing
“The planet is warming, and our measurements prove it” — see Anthony Watts on the selection of measurement points.
The hottest period in recent decades was the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. Since then, we’ve seen more new record cold readings than new record warm.
There is also considerable evidence that the planet was notably warmer in the not too distant past, without having been impacted by industrial activity. The medieval warm period and the Roman era, among them. (Changes in the earth’s climate over the last 200 years are miniscule when compared with our knowledge of climate variability over the last 10,000 years and beyond. Suggesting man’s role is correspondingly modest.)
Predictions that warming would raise sea levels and inundate low lying island nations have proven largely false.
It is also clear to me that politicians DO have an agenda here, and they use public funds to advance it. And the corruption at the IPCC involving deliberate falsification of data and methodology has been revealed for all who care to look closely.
Researchers in the field dependent on public grant money had better produce results that satisfy those who fund the research, if they want their careers to continue. (I’m sure those working in the field of shorter term weather forecasting have been far better able to retain their professional credibility since that isn’t their focus.)
I regularly encounter posts from retired members of the scientific community with expertise in the field who have recanted their positions once they feel they have the freedom to speak honestly.
Re CO2, I think the more persuasive evidence is that warming comes first, which encourages plant life, which results in more CO2 being produced. The direction of causation is reversed. Its more complicated than that — with a chicken and egg relationship — once you add the water vapor and cloud formation, but AGW advocates won’t even acknowledge that possibility.
Finally, if the issue is so critical and the outlook so dire, why is so little pressure being applied to nations like China that rely heavily on polluting coal? Most of the industrial growth is occurring outside the West. [That is because] this is ultimately a program of socialist redistribution from the West to the East involving huge sums of money that would allow key agents to profiteer through the taxing regimes put in place.
As for the final question, I’m comfortable with my view that the earth is in a decades long cooling cycle, and we have more to fear from abnormally cold conditions (and the shortening of growing seasons) than from warming. Lots of lessons from the Maunder Min to contemplate there.
Finally, I’d be happy to take this discussion off the board if you’d care. I don’t have a lot of time at this moment, but over the summer I’ll have time enough to provide ample citations on these points. pdl
Bang on, sir. The “tell” is the statement that the ice caps are melting, north and south. Not true. More ice pack on the Arctic than ever, and it is growing year by year. Reminds me of the scam that the polar bears are all dying. Utter nonsense. Let these guys talk long enough and eventually a “tell” is revealed.
And good luck trying to get the big polluters to reign in their pollution. Ain’t gonna happen, and it is a pointless exercise.
Hi Pedro, thanks for your measured response. Like you, I have limited time right now, but in response to some of your points…
I’m not a retired member of the scientific community, free to say what I like. I’m 48 years old and in the midst of my career. I am free to speak because what I say is what I know to be the truth.
I have no political agenda at all, in fact I have no allegiance to any political party – I’ll give my backing to anyone who speaks from the heart, with sincerity and compassion, and is capable of making reasoned decisions.
You are right to point out that the planet has been both warmer and colder in the past than it is now. Changing climate is nothing new. What is different is that this time the levels of atmospheric gases are being altered by mankinds activity. It would be displaying a complete lack of knowledge of atmospheric physics to suggest otherwise. The current rate of change in global sea level and particularly polar temperatures is at the very least concerning.
Changing climate is fine if ecosystems have the time to change and adapt. Genuine, honest projections (currently on track) from people (colleagues) with no agenda at all suggest we may have a big issue to deal with. It happened in the past I hear you say, let it happen, it’s not a problem. The thing is that in the past we didn’t have millions, billions of people living in cities right next to the ocean. The UK is smashing record rainfall and high temperature records every year, but low temperature records are not even challenged. Island communities around the entire planet are seeing the effects and joining together to call for action. The Solomon Islands have already lost at least 5 islands to sea level rise https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-swallows-5-whole-pacific-islands/ Miami is also a case in point http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise If the Earth was cooling, we wouldn’t be seeing dramatic reductions in ice volumes, and we wouldn’t be measuring year on year rapid rise in sea levels. But we are. I’m not making this up. We are actually measuring this, here and now.
There are many ways of arguing (and convincingly) that there is nothing to worry about. Some will still be saying it as our cities become overwhelmed, and whole climate patterns shift and global ocean circulations shift, causing rapid changes. By then it’ll be too late to avert the worst effects. The world won’t end, humanity won’t be wiped out, but we will be living on a very different planet. Question is – how much are we prepared to let it change ? Because once we get another degree or two warmer we’ll have very little choice or control. The processes involved become self-reinforcing and much, much harder to stop.
Thanks Fully and Pedro.
This is not me …this is Northstar …he is a Meteorologist and a very cool guy reporting what he knows as he is on the front line of this research.
He has certainly give me reason to question my assumptions.
If you are going to claim that man is the reason for an increase in temperatures would you please also tell us what you know about Orbital precession. Without a discussion of this it means that one does not understand what has driven past climate cycles.
Plunger, you are one smart dude…
Yeah, that was an interesting element to raise, but my understanding is that the orbital precession (earth’s wobbles) are really long term cycles that explain the frequency of the glacial and interglacial cycles. I think the more relevant dynamics here involve the subcycles within the Holocene interglacial. Understand those, and then you know what to expect (a priori) with our current climate … absent any exogenous influences. Then there’s your controlled experiment. Plunger .. if I’m wrong, please correct me here.
Further thanks to fully for posting Exhibit A, the chart up near the top. (Charts can’t be posted in the comments … so there was no other place really)
The point behind this chart is basic …. we are not experiencing climate change outside the range of normal variability based on the recent historical record.
I would also add the expected hockey stick move in temps Gore emphasized has not materialized over the last 15 years, puzzling the warming crowd. That speaks against Northstar’s claims of urgency that we face a risk that this gets out of hand too fast to remedy.
*************
Unfortunately, its likely a fruitless debate. For now.
The AGW communities models are pretty much black boxes, apparently using data that is suspect and manipulated.
When I was an economic expert, we used what was called a “But For” model to examine the role of exogenous factors involving economic damages in court cases.
You had to start with a model that reliably explained how things worked before/without the intrusion of the new influence at issue (here, industrial activity and CO2).
I’ve only encountered two OTHER attempts to do build a climate model that functions outside the industrial age, in the context of this AGW debate. That is, one that focuses on the interglacial Holocene period and its subcycles. I assume there could well be others.
My question is what explains the Minoan warm period, the Roman, the Medieval, and the recoveries from Spörer, Maunder and Dalton (among others)? And of course the interceding mini ice ages themselves?
Zharkova’s is one of them, focusing on the 11 year cycle.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm (copy and paste I think)
“When there is full phase separation (in Solar Cycle 26 beginning 2030), we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”
The intensity of solar radiation from one solar cycle to the next is the other. The sunspot watchers.
Both are solar driven models. I find those intuitively appealing as a starting point. If solar activity doesn’t play a dominant role in climate cycles, I’ll give up.
I think you have to be able to model climate reliably before industrialization struck, so you know what our climate SHOULD be like now if human influences were not a factor. Then you compare that prediction with our reality to see if there’s a statistical difference.
Not meaning to pile on … but just stumbled onto this moments ago … to the point behind the chart
smart people used to work there …..
New York Times 1938 – 1,000 Years Required To Prove Global Warming
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/06/new-york-times-1938-1000-years-required-to-prove-global-warming/
Posted on June 29, 2017 by tonyheller
In 1938, the New York Times showed that the Arctic, the US, and the world were growing warmer and the Arctic was melting. But they said no self-respecting meteorologist would claim global warming until they had 1,000 years of data – because it would be impossible to distinguish any short term patterns from natural cycles. (see highlighted text towards the end of the newspaper clipping)
a simple question!if millions of people are trying to guess at the direction
of the financial markets with very limited success,do you really think that there is a good model for planetary climate over long cycles?
check out this man,Randell Carlson, for some out of the box information concerning ice ages,planetary cycles,and what forces might be at work effecting planetry climate
https://www.youtube.com/user/SacredGeometryAtl
I think this will be my last comment on here, because like I said, people tend to have very fixed views and are reluctant to ‘reconsider’. My main reason for putting up the original post was this… 99% of the time the topics we hear being discussed are things that we might think we know something about, but, in truth, we know very little about. We form our opinions on truth, half truth, rumour and damn lies, and it’s usually hard to know which is which. On this occasion, and on this topic, I have 30 years of ‘inside’ information, knowledge and experience. I know the science, I know the people and I know what motivates them. We’re not highly paid, so we’re not in it for the money. It’s a thirst for knowledge and a drive to help others by sharing what we know. Full stop. Period. That’s why I love this site. When you don’t know everything about a subject, it’s necessary to consider all sides, with an open mind and learn and grow your experience, gradually, all the while keeping that open mind.
Pedro said ‘The point behind this chart is basic …. we are not experiencing climate change outside the range of normal variability based on the recent historical record.’ and also…
‘I would also add the expected hockey stick move in temps Gore emphasized has not materialized over the last 15 years, puzzling the warming crowd. That speaks against Northstar’s claims of urgency that we face a risk that this gets out of hand too fast to remedy.’
You are quite right – normal variability has taken us to greater high and low extremes in the past. It amuses me that people seem to think we haven’t considered every factor known to man – the Earths ‘wobble’, solar activity, volcanic activity and every other source of energy on this planet and off it. With every one of these factored in, we should be seeing fairly stable global temperatures at the moment. It’s only when human outputs are added into the model that we see a close match. We’re not trying to make the data fit here. It just does, and I don’t believe it’s a coincidence – see the graph at the top right of this link https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change_.html
His second point that our ‘hockey stick’ move hasn’t happened and is ‘puzzling the warming crowd’. Where do I start ? I’m not part of a ‘warming crowd’. I follow the data, and if it changes and points to a future cooling, that is what I will happily share with everyone. You can see the projections for greenhouse gases and global surface temperatures here https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change_.html
I wouldn’t use sensationalist language like ‘hockey stick’ – just one more degree and we’re going to be in trouble. If we warm another 3 degrees it still won’t be the warmest the Earth has ever been, but it will result in untold human suffering. Not just because of the temperature rise itself and the flood/droughts that it will bring, but because of the speed of the changes. Ecosystems and species will not have time to adapt.
On the question of China – they themselves realise they have to change and clean up their polluted air. They have made big strides towards change and major commitments to stop increasing and begin decreasing emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/china-says-it-will-cut-power-sector-emissions-60-by-2020 (one of very few newspapers who report in a balanced way when it comes to climate science).
All of our climate models are pointing in the same direction. We can shut up and keep that information to ourselves, or we can share it. The politicians will continue to use it for their own agendas. It’s a shame because it makes people cynical.
Me ? I’ll always seek the truth and happily share what I know, whichever side of the argument it supports.
Thank you very much Northstar .
I personally believe Governments are naturally self-sustaining entities – climate change narratives, no matter the truthfulness in which the degree or whether warming or cooling, are simply TOOLS to achieve the goal of controlling populations and consolidating authority via regulation. I know of several private industries had to shut down because of the 2012 gov’t shutdown threat – that’s excessive power IMO.
Of course polluting countries want US $ to over-subsidize the clean environment pool. Leaving the Paris accord was primarily a question of ‘fairness’ and pulling sovereign weight, not whether or not US leadership believes the climate does in fact change or if it requires a ‘solution’.
California’s gov’t policies implemented as a result of global warming (‘change’ what have you) data, is what I fear for my own and future generations’ freedom of choice and economic sustainability. It’s also a minor thing but I happen to like my 2-stroke outboard. I am reasonably confident individuals can adapt to a changing environment without giving up their freedom of choice to governments. People live in frigid regions and the equator because they are adaptable, not because a gov’t told them their behavior must to be modified through regulation in order for them to be comfortable or even to survive.
“…get a much better insight into the implications of our selfish actions”
I feel no guilt in my (selfish) attitude toward a changing climate. I recycle etc. but it’s not out of guilt.