Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc
Renato, there's little point in having a discussion if you won't read what's written. I've twice pointed out that 93% of *observed* warming goes into the oceans, and yet you're still banging on about a non-significant short-term 'hiatus' in 2% of the climate system (the atmosphere) as if that proves Earth isn't still rapidly gaining heat.
You didn't follow the links to all the Antarctic sea ice research papers in the SkS link? Or was reading and following information to it's source too much?
Climate science is completely underpinned by *observations*. Old tired talking points about it only being models fall into the 'not even wrong' category.
You're wrong about so many things it is painful! I'm sorry to see a fellow astronomer in such a position. I only hope that one day you'll understand this and have the grace to accept it. I'd love to be wrong about climate, but based on the research literature, the chances of that are virtually nil.
Clear skies
|
Hi Andy,
As I replied in my response to N1 below, since having been trained and getting an A in my undergraduate studies on the perils of Global Cooling, I take anything I read about this subject with a grain of salt.
I note that you too, have adopted the position that this Hiatus doesn't matter.
So, suppose I had taken your advice and limited myself to John Cook's supposedly excellent site, with the deceptive name of Skeptical Science.
1. Up till last year, would I have read in it,
a. there are a whole bunch of nutters claiming that there has been a pause in global temperatures since 1998 or further back, which is plain wrong, or
b. how about that, there is a pause?
5th Assessment Report comes out, and the Heresy about no pause is dispelled, we have an Hiatus.
2. Up till last year, would I have read in it,
a. Michael Mann's work on the Hockey Stick graph has been invaluable, it became the centrepiece of the Assessment report, which has galvanized governments across the world to take action, and which shows that the Medieval Warm Period of the 11th to 12th century and Little Ice Age of the 18th century were essentially figments of people's imagination, (despite some 1800 or so peer reviewed geology papers which studied one or other or both of those periods), or
b. statisticians have been looking at Mann's work, and cannot reproduce his results using his raw data, when they try do what he said he did they get the opposite answer, and when they've asked to have a copy of his algorithms and computer code, he has refused to provide it citing intellectual property. The whole direction of the world's future is being predicated on results which can't be reproduced?
5th Assessment Report comes out, and the Hockey Stick is pushed to the side.
3. Up till last year, would I have read in it,
a. Global Warming is causing and will continue causing a large increase in extreme weather events - cyclones, hurricanes, droughts and floods (as recited by Wong, Brown, Rudd, Gillard, Flannery, and as still recited today by Bandt) or
b. there's one author of the IPCC report, who is a world expert on hurricanes and cyclones, who wrote for the Assessment report that the frequency and intensity of cyclones had been decreasing for decades, but when the final report came out, the exact opposite was written?
5th Assessment Report comes out, and in it it states there is limited evidence of changes in extremes during the 20th century, no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century, lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale, low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms, not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness.(So much for all the green alarmism that accompanies every bushfire, flood or cyclone reported on the evning news).
It appears to me that John Cook's orthodox site seems to lag significantly what is to become the new orthodoxy. I am glad I chose to take the three examples above with a grain of salt.
Cook's site does tell you about the 4 Hiroshima bombs a second of energy increase on earth due to global warming, and how that is now heating up the oceans (but not the atmosphere). The oceans are now the big thing, but they didn't rate much of a mention in the early assessment reports.
However, others have been quick to point out that Cook doesn't give additional information which may put things into a bit more perspective, like that the sun is hitting the earth with 1950 Hiroshima bombs every second, and that yes, the ocean's temperatures have been going up slightly, but only by the heat of half an Hiroshima bomb a second - thus 3.5 Hiroshima Bombs a second seem to be missing from the atmosphere and from the oceans.
So, I'll have fun waiting for the sixth Assessment Report to see what it has to say about this.
Cheers,
Renato