The oceans are rising!

[brewmama]

Telling us that ice can recover in cool years does not address the central issue that long term studies indicate that on the average each year has been having less ice, and that this is related to warmer global temperatures.

Except that each year is not less ice than the previous year as stated earlier in the thread, since the low was around 2012, and it has increased since then.

And historically there are problems. A summary of some of the things found in Judith Curry's analysis:

"Modern Arctic ice reconstruction data bases show a high level of ice in the period 1920 to 1940 that declined rapidly during the period of satellite observation from 1979 with a notable acceleration over the last decade. However, the historical record demonstrates that the modern record substantially overstates the ice extent of the earlier period.
We find that estimates of sea ice of the era often excluded Russian sources and that estimates from other areas appear to have shortcomings.
Much of the arctic was unexplored and the certainties with which climatological methods were used to estimate the sea ice boundaries appear unsound."

This study has been shown to have major flaws. See
Climate Change and the Record 2014 California Drought[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Michael E. Mann . What do you think of Mann's assessment?

What do I think of Michael Mann?? The hockey schmuck? Who just had his latest paper slammed? Mann on the run – latest paper ‘dead at birth’, rejected by German warmist scientists, deletes inconvenient Facebook challenge | Watts Up With That?
NASA refutes Mann and Rahmstorf – Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing | Watts Up With That?
Who had no science organizations offer any supporting briefs in his law case? Why should anyone care what he thinks?

There are many variables associated with the drought in California, but there is evidence that global climate change is part of the problem.

And regardless of what is causing the drought, we know that we have increased the CO2 levels of the atmosphere and that this has been causing the temperatures to rise. Do you agree with both of these assertions? If not, what evidence do you have that the scientific community is wrong on these points?

There may be slight warming from increased CO2, most scientists believe that, but not that it is the absolute hinge upon which the the entire climate of the entire world depends and is controlled by. There is plenty of "scientific community" that disagrees with CAGW, it's not hard to find.

Study: Climate change does not cause extreme winters | Watts Up With That?

New Study: Climate Alarmism Takes One Helluva Beating | Watts Up With That?
based on this paperhttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

A brief history of climate panic and crisis… both warming and cooling | Watts Up With That?

 

[amanuensis63]

What do I think of Michael Mann?? The hockey schmuck?

Excellent retort. Definitely worthwhile to focus on a few gratuitous insults rather than the data. Hockey Schmuck? Really?

Who just had his latest paper slammed? Mann on the run – latest paper ‘dead at birth’, rejected by German warmist scientists, deletes inconvenient Facebook challenge | Watts Up With That?
NASA refutes Mann and Rahmstorf – Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing | Watts Up With That?

Couple points:
1. the NASA reference was 5 years ago

2. further if one goes by the Rossby 2014 paper which WUWT also do (Rosby: HERE) which discusses 20 years of direct measurements of the current the key difference is that Mann and Rahmstorff's paper uses decadally smoothed data over 1100 years, so the 20 year data window is far too short for the study at hand. Apparently according to Rahmstorff himself their index showed a slight increase in the current during those 20 years but it was within uncertainty of Rossby's calculated trends.

And the idea of the Thermohaline Current reorganization is hardly something new. Broecker wrote about it years ago (HERE) There's even evidence of such a thing happening in earth's own history (you might recognize the reliance on earth's history since skeptics like to act like climate scientists don't know about that....but hey, it shows what can happen when the climate changes (as it is doing today!)

 

[brewmama]

Excellent retort. Definitely worthwhile to focus on a few gratuitous insults rather than the data. Hockey Schmuck? Really?
Couple points:
1. the NASA reference was 5 years ago

2. further if one goes by the Rossby 2014 paper which WUWT also do (Rosby: HERE) which discusses 20 years of direct measurements of the current the key difference is that Mann and Rahmstorff's paper uses decadally smoothed data over 1100 years, so the 20 year data window is far too short for the study at hand. Apparently according to Rahmstorff himself their index showed a slight increase in the current during those 20 years but it was within uncertainty of Rossby's calculated trends.

And the idea of the Thermohaline Current reorganization is hardly something new. Broecker wrote about it years ago (HERE) There's even evidence of such a thing happening in earth's own history (you might recognize the reliance on earth's history since skeptics like to act like climate scientists don't know about that....but hey, it shows what can happen when the climate changes (as it is doing today!)

As it always has!

 

[brewmama]

double post

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Originally Posted by brewmama

What do I think of Michael Mann?? The hockey schmuck?


​

You mean the guy who is a Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State?

You mean the guy who has over 180 peer-reviewed and edited publications?

You mean the guy who in 2014 was named Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information?

I don't think you understand what "schmuck" means.


Originally Posted by brewmama

Who just had his latest paper slammed? Mann on the run – latest paper ‘dead at birth’, rejected by German warmist scientists, deletes inconvenient Facebook challenge | Watts Up With That?
NASA refutes Mann and Rahmstorf – Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing | Watts Up With That?
​

You are aware that it is common to get papers rejected right?



Originally Posted by brewmama

Why should anyone care what he thinks?


​

Who cares what he thinks? Just all those scientists who cited his work, to earn him Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information.

In the words of Pepe Le Pew: "Le Sigh."

 

[amanuensis63]

As it always has!

Do you think the current reorganizes for no reason?

This is like saying people have always died so if we find a murder victim there's no point in looking for the murderer.

Skeptics on here love to point to the history of the earth to bolster their claims that AGW isn't real...but in fact it is because we know about the history of the earth that we know what causes some of the earth's climate changes...and guess what? Humans are currently doing one of the things that causes climate change!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Brewmama,

I'm still trying to understand where you stand on the basics of global warming. I had asked if you agree that we have greatly increased the level of carbon dioxide in the air and if this had been causing temperatures to rise. Your answer skirts the issue.

There may be slight warming from increased CO2, most scientists believe that, but not that it is the absolute hinge upon which the the entire climate of the entire world depends and is controlled by.

Which doesn't even address the issue of whether we as humans have raised the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Scientists have shown conclusively that CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm since industrialization, and that this increase is almost entirely due to human activities. Do you or do you not agree with mainstream science on this point? Please answer.

You say, "there may be slight warming from increased CO2". OK, so if a person claimed he knew with absolute certainty that CO2 could not possibly have effected temperature even minutely, you would not agree with his claim? I guess it is good to know that you do not take such an extreme denial position seriously, but since I doubt if you ever heard anybody who actually took the position you condemn, why even bother to state that you don't take that position?

Do you or do you not think that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Does it tend to increase the temperature of a planet?

Do you or do you not agree that temperatures have increased quite significantly in the last 100 years on our planet?

You say that carbon dioxide is not, "the absolute hinge upon which the entire climate of the entire world depends and is controlled by". Oh good, we both disagree with anybody who says carbon dioxide is "the absolute hinge upon which the entire climate of the entire world depends and is controlled by". Oh gee. But since no scientists say that, why even bother to state it.

OK, so I understand you disagree with those who claim the earth sits on an elephant on the back of a turtle; or who claim that CO2 could not possibly have any effect on climate; or who claim that CO2 is an absolute hinge on which the world depends; or who claim that the moon is made of cream cheese. Fine. But why bother to state things that nobody believes, and tell us you don't believe those things either?

So back to the actual questions:
1. Do you agree that we have drastically raised the levels of CO2 on the planet?
2. Do you agree that CO2 levels significantly affect the temperatures of a planet?
3. Do you agree that temperatures have risen significantly in the last century?

Can you please address these questions?

 

[Aldebaran]

Let's see how that works when we apply your logic to yourself.:

1. If you believe in Christianity, then you believe you shouldn't sin.
2. You have sinned.
3. Therefore you do not believe in Christianity.

Implying the sea levels aren't rising, or that global warming isn't taking place because Obama has wasted fuel is a stupid argument.

You're clearly not good at understanding what people are saying. The only thing I was implying when saying Obama wastes fuel (many tens of thousands of gallons of it) so frequently while professing to care so much for the environment indicates that he isn't genuinely concerned about the environment and probably doesn't believe global warming is even an issue worth doing anything about.

So much for your little straw-man argument.

 

[brewmama]

Brewmama,

I'm still trying to understand where you stand on the basics of global warming. I had asked if you agree that we have greatly increased the level of carbon dioxide in the air and if this had been causing temperatures to rise. Your answer skirts the issue.

So back to the actual questions:
1. Do you agree that we have drastically raised the levels of CO2 on the planet?
2. Do you agree that CO2 levels significantly affect the temperatures of a planet?
3. Do you agree that temperatures have risen significantly in the last century?
Can you please address these questions?

1.Not "drastically"

2.Not significantly

3.Not significantly

 

[amanuensis63]

1.Not "drastically"

You DO realize that we've been able to shift the stable isotopic composition of the atmospheric carbon away from the previous 10,000 year mix and in the exact direction one would expect from the burning of fossil fuels, right? You are a chemist so this surely has meaning to you.

2.Not significantly

You ARE aware that there is a measured "climate sensitivity" due to CO2 doubling, correct? It is estimated to be about 2-3degC/doubling of CO2.

While that may not seem "significant" to you, it actually is. CO2 is one of the better greenhouse gases.

3.Not significantly

I love these "not significantly" claims. You stand completely opposite to the majority of the earth's climate and earth scientists.

Who should we believe? The majority of the earth's professional earth scientists or someone who studied chemistry in college but didn't use it for a career?

 

[Viren]

1.Not "drastically"

Just 50% more than the past 400,000 years or 800,000 if you included the Antarctic samples.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You're clearly not good at understanding what people are saying. The only thing I was implying when saying Obama wastes fuel (many tens of thousands of gallons of it) so frequently while professing to care so much for the environment indicates that he isn't genuinely concerned about the environment and probably doesn't believe global warming is even an issue worth doing anything about.

So much for your little straw-man argument.

Pointing out errors in your logic is not a strawman argument. Here is a link to logical fallacies. Please read them. Thanks.

Apparently you think one of the POTUS' main concerns should be saving fuel, and if it isn't, he isn't "genuinely concerned about the environment."

Your argument is, again, ridiculous. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Brewmama,

You find yourself in a position in which you deny the basic conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists. OK, I guess it is remotely possible that you are right and they are all wrong, but for us to believe you, you would need to address the actual claims of science and show us where those claims are wrong.

I asked you if you agreed that humans have drastically increased the amount of CO2. You reply:

1.Not "drastically"

I am not sure what you mean by the scare quotes. I told you exactly what I meant. CO2 levels have been raised from 280 to 400 ppm since industrialization. Isotope analysis verifies that this CO2 came from the burning of fossil fuels. You can see the chart here where levels had never exceeded 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. Now it is at 400 ppm. And you disagree? (or are you actually agreeing and only using the scare quotes to hide that you actually agree? Your answer is quite cryptic.) If you think scientists are wrong on this, please tell us how much you think we have changed the CO2 levels and how you know you are right and the majority of scientists are wrong.

Next I asked you if CO2 affects the temperature of planets.

2.Not significantly

Wow. scientists have known for a long time that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. The figure you saw here is 2-3 deg C per doubling of CO2. Once again, if you are going to set yourself against the bulk of science on this point, please tell us how much you think a doubling of CO2 will affect temperatures, and how you know your figures are right, and the bulk of scientists are wrong.

Next I asked If temperatures have raised significantly in the last century. You write:

3.Not significantly

Scientists have shown that global temperatures have risen .75 deg C in the last century. Again you think they are wrong? Fine, how much do you think temperatures have changed, and how do you know you are right and scientists are wrong.

Not everybody needs to know the answers to such questions. But those who set out to tell us that the established answers of science are wrong should be expected to give us their answers to these questions and how they know science is wrong on these points.

I eagerly await your answers.

 

[Aldebaran]

Pointing out errors in your logic is not a strawman argument. Here is a link to logical fallacies. Please read them. Thanks.

Apparently you think one of the POTUS' main concerns should be saving fuel, and if it isn't, he isn't "genuinely concerned about the environment."

Your argument is, again, ridiculous. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

So you apparently think one of his main concerns is to worry about saving the earth from us polluters, but not to set an example? Does that earn credibility with you? How about Al Gore? He's no better.

Whatever. Let Oh Blah Blah and his wife take separate jets and Secret Service details on separate days while they jet off to some exotic location for one of their many vacations. That's what the office of POTUS seems to be about anyway. He tries to rule like a king, so let him live as one.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So you apparently think one of his main concerns is to worry about saving the earth from us polluters, but not to set an example? Does that earn credibility with you? How about Al Gore? He's no better.

Whatever. Let Oh Blah Blah and his wife take separate jets and Secret Service details on separate days while they jet off to some exotic location for one of their many vacations. That's what the office of POTUS seems to be about anyway. He tries to rule like a king, so let him live as one.

You are challenged to get off the personality thing and actually address the evidence and this is what you say. We take this as a concession that you don't have evidence, only innuendo.

We understand, you provide what you have, not what you don't have.

 

[Aldebaran]

You are challenged to get off the personality thing and actually address the evidence and this is what you say. We take this as a concession that you don't have evidence, only innuendo.

We understand, you provide what you have, not what you don't have.

I provided you with the guy's actions and how they conflict with his words. The evidence for it has been broadcast on TV and over the internet for everyone to see, and for some to ignore.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I provided you with the guy's actions and how they conflict with his words.

"The guy" is not the reason folks are concerned about climate change.

The issue is what the scientists say. And there is an overwhelming consensus of climate science that the CO2 we are putting into the air is causing major problems.

Let's see if we can get you to address the questions that other climate change deniers avoid. Science has shown conclusively that CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 200 years, and that almost all of this is due to human activity. Do you agree that science at least has this right, or do you deny it?

And do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

The evidence for it has been broadcast on TV and over the internet for everyone to see, and for some to ignore.

If we were ignoring it, then why are we here addressing you? Make your case. Are CO2 levels rising? Are temperatures rising? Are oceans rising?

Or would you rather talk about the guy?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What do I think of Michael Mann?? The hockey schmuck? Who just had his latest paper slammed? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/...ists-deletes-inconvenient-facebook-challenge/

Ah, so now you choose science by name calling? I'm glad real science does not work that way.

One quote from that link should be sufficient:

When a warmist dismisses another warmists’s science, then you know it’s likely pretty slipshod.​

Uh, no, when one scientist argues with the detail of another scientist's work, that is an indication that real science might actually be occurring. That is the whole basis of science. If one scientist establishes a claim, then others test the conclusion to see if they can disprove it, or if the claim needs modification. If a claim withstands repeated scrutiny, it becomes generally accepted throughout the scientific community.

Now if instead all scientists were to just step in line and say "Amen!" every time a leading scientist claimed something in line with climate change, that would be "pretty slipshod". But if scientists actually test each claim and find alternate explanations where needed, that makes me feel good that somewhere something is right in the world, and that honest scientists are busy doing their job.

 

[doubtingmerle]

NASA refutes Mann and Rahmstorf – Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing | Watts Up With That?

That's odd that this study says the "conveyor belt" is not slowing down, because I remember reading just this week that there is new evidence that it is slowing down. So I looked it up again and found https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/pre...-overturning-found-to-slow-down-already-today .

I personally don't know enough to understand who is right on this. I note that the Potsdam study is 5 years later than the NASA study, and they may have new technology or things might have changed since the NASA study. At any rate, this is just an example of science doing its work. Deep ocean currents are difficult to measure, and difficult to predict. One should not be surprised that there are differing conclusions, or that the status in 2015 differs with your study from 2010. There is definitely a concern that climate change could affect the currents, but nobody really knows when it will happen and the extent of the change. The fact that the Potsdam study finds concrete evidence that it is actually happening already is cause for concern.

Just curious, will you also read and quote the Potsdam study, or are you interested only in articles where there is something you can use to support your claim?

 

[doubtingmerle]

A brief history of climate panic and crisis… both warming and cooling | Watts Up With That?

Once again we have pure flapdoodle, something that seems to be a trend at the Watts Up site.

Yes, there have been some scientists that have predicted global cooling in the past. And some uniformed people have set off alarms about temperature changes in the past. But we never had a situation in which there was a large consensus of scientists that global cooling was a serious concern. Most of the studies referenced here were simply arguments that cooling may be a problem. What we have today is very different from that. We have a huge consensus that is convinced that warming is a problem. That is far different from the sporadic concerns for both warming and cooling that occurred in the past.

See Cruz on the Global Cooling Myth and Galileo