Global Warming Update: Hell Freezes Over!

[macdoc]

We'll wait for the Nobel winning thesis

I guess he thinks China and the US are conniving on it too....

Joint U.S.-China Statement on Climate Change

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 13, 2013

The United States of America and the People's Republic of China recognize that the increasing dangers presented by climate change measured against the inadequacy of the global response requires a more focused and urgent initiative. The two sides have been engaged in constructive discussions through various channels over several years bilaterally and multilaterally, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process and the Major Economies Forum. In addition, both sides consider that the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change constitutes a compelling call to action crucial to having a global impact on climate change.

The two countries took special note of the overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change and its worsening impacts, including the sharp rise in global average temperatures over the past century, the alarming acidification of our oceans, the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, and the striking incidence of extreme weather events occurring all over the world.
Both sides recognize that, given the latest scientific understanding of accelerating climate change and the urgent need to intensify global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, forceful, nationally appropriate action by the United States and China – including large-scale cooperative action – is more critical than ever. Such action is crucial both to contain climate change and to set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/04/207465.htm

but MM knows better...

AND....he's got the science to prove it........er..so he says....

[macdoc]

The models have the Earth accumulating huge quantities of heat, over the last sixteen years.
Trouble is, ''science'' can't find it. Sixteen years of warming, in hiding from ''science''.
Call that science???

hmmmm MM makes the claim....no backup.

MM doesn't understand the atmosphere is not the only heat accumulator....in fact it's a very small one.

He is entirely avoiding the 900 lb gorilla



amusing that our right wing deniers are confusing weather with climate......not surprising tho.
Given them the science and they they say we're "pivoting"....when in fact we are explaining a well understood phenomena that drives the weather that they are all in a tizzy about.

The Arctic is warmer - the continental highs are split and further south - you show them the actual analysis and they ignore it. Doesn't suit their politics. Right wing is digging it's anti-science hole deeper and deeper.
I see the anti-evolution and climate deniers have joined forces.....why am I not surprised....fools of a feather.

[macdoc]

Lets take a step further into the science...

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 1–6, doi:10.1002/grl.50382, 2013
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Magdalena A. Balmaseda,1 Kevin E. Trenberth,2 and Erland Källén1

4. Summary and Conclusions
[15] The time evolution of the global OHC for the period 1958–2009, as estimated by the ORAS4 ocean reanalysis, is dominated by a warming trend and pronounced cooling episodes, and shows an increasing warming trend at depths below 700 m. The cooling episodes correspond to cooling seen in SSTs in response to the El Chichón and Mt Pinatubo eruptions, and the radiative imbalance associated with the latter [Trenberth and Dai, 2007] is consistent with the cooling found here. More surprising is the extra cooling following 1998, a likely consequence of the ocean heat discharge associated with the massive 1997–1998 El Niño event [Trenberth et al., 2002]. Meehl et al. [2011] have demonstrated in a model study how La Niña events and negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers. This mechanism can also explain the increasing role of the depths below 700 m after 1999 in the ORAS4 OHC, consistent with La Niña-like conditions and a negative phase of the PDO which has dominated the last decade. The deep ocean warming, which mostly involves the depth range 700–2000 m, may also be related to the weakening of the MOC after 1995, which is present in ORAS4 [BMW13]. Possibly changes in MOC and PDO are connected through changes in the atmospheric circulation patterns.
[16] The deep ocean has continued to warm, while the upper 300 m OHC appears to have stabilized. The differ- ences in recent trends among the different ocean layers are profound. The small warming in the upper 300 m is belied by the continuing warming for the ocean as a whole, with considerable warming occurring below 700 m[/b].

what was that again about missing heat???

Now that it's been demostrated that is not missing are you going to 'fess' up and admit your are wrong??

that in fact....

it's getting warmer
we're responsible..

and move on to doing something about it???

[macdoc]

and a cherry....

Here's an exemplar of where the debate needs to be going and that is from Exxon .....

OIL & GAS, SOLAR, WIND
Exxon CEO: Climate Change Poses Significant Risk, but Outcome is Uncertain
By CONWAY IRWIN on May 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Exxon Mobile CEO and Chairman Rex Tiller

Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson acknowledged the risks posed by climate change at the company’s annual meeting on May 29, but he stressed that the real-world consequences of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels remain unknown.

“We view climate change as a serious issue, it does present serious risk,” Tillerson told shareholders.

But he cast doubt on the certainty with which forecasts can be made about what climate change may mean in practical terms. “Notwithstanding all the advancements that have been made in gathering more data, instrumenting the planet so that we understand who climate conditions are changing…our ability to project the future with any degree of certainty continues to be very limited,” he said.

“Our ability to understand all the relationships between emissions, the environment and the feedback loops continues to be one of the scientific community’s grand challenges,” said Tillerson.

Tillerson said that while 350 parts per million is a frequently-cited safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 concentration, the number does not represent a specific set of implications. “I cannot conclude that there’s something magical about 350,” he said.

He added that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges limits to the accuracy of its models’ climate change forecasts. “They publish a very broad range of possible outcomes because they acknowledge the model’s competencies are questionable,” Tillerson said. “To suggest that 350 versus 450 somehow is a known outcome is just not respecting the competency of the models.”

And a lack of good information about the consequences of moving past specific atmospheric CO2 levels complicates preparation. “Our ability to predict the consequences is just not that good.”

Weighing climate risk against economic risk

Tillerson stressed that alternatives to fossil fuels do not yet exist at a cost and scale that could supplant fossil fuels without severe negative economic and social consequences.

“We do not have a readily available replacement for the energy that provides the means of living that the world has today – our standard of living, but equally and perhaps more importantly, the 2 billion people on the planet that live below anything that we find acceptable,” he said. “Windmills won’t do it, solar panels won’t do it, biofuels won’t do it.”

“We do not see a viable pathway, any known technology today, to achieve the 350 [ppm] outcome that is not devastating to economies, societies, and people’s health and welfare around the world,” Tillerson said. “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers in the process of those efforts, if you don’t know what the outcome is going to be?”

He called for focusing on progress in technologies that can reduce emissions without adverse economic repercussions. “We’re only going to find that way forward if we can put all of our energies into that, and less into the most extreme viewpoints at either end of this debate, which is we’re all doomed or we’re all crazy. Because neither of those is right.”

Pending the discovery or advancement of such technologies, ExxonMobil continues to tout the potential of efficiency as a means of managing climate change risk – a sentiment recently echoed by prominent public figures, such as US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and International Energy Agency Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven.

finally getting around to acknowledging the problem is the first step in managing it and he has a point about economics tho perhaps not quite as cut and dried.

Sweden is well on it's way to carbon neutral by 2050 with a mix of technologies including nuclear but transport is presenting a problem as gasoline is high density energy storate.

But at least Exxon is now acknowledging the risk and the reality...if he can get there ....surely you resident deniers can.

Trying to fight the science these days just puts you in with the loonies......
Arguing the case about policy approach is indeed worth while.

Exxon makes a good point about fightng emissions with efficiency and it's a very important one and one that is showing promise as the US emissions are down 11% as coal is replaced by natural gas and inefficient coal plants are closed and perhaps American's are using less gasoline for a variety of reasons.

He's not denying AGW tho...he wants to deal with it

In Canada

The Tyee – Canada's Oil Insiders Want a Carbon Tax
thetyee.ca/News/2012/06/20/Carbon-Tax-Supporters/‎
by G Dembicki - ‎2012
Jun 20, 2012 - Surprising as that sounds, interviews reveal a business community consensus based on economics. Third in a Tyee Solutions Society series.

Does the oil sands industry actually want a carbon tax? | iPolitics

http://www.ipolitics.ca/.../does-the-oi ... ant-a-...‎
by Colin Horgan - in 189 Google+ circles
Feb 1, 2013 - Talking Heads ... Oil companies operating in Canada such as Exxon Mobil Corp. ... A carbon tax “is one of the ways to promote better performance of the industry,” Andre Goffart, president of Total's Canadian unit, said in an ...

THEY got there....what's your problem MM....off in some fantasy land???

[subversive science]

You can spout all you like about people ignoring science. That's not an argument. It's just a baseless claim. No evidence offered whatsoever.
Just like the Jesus claim. Or the thousands of others.
If you actually understood science, you would know that to propose something, you need to back it up.
Nobody on this site has ever backed up their claims.

I pointed out a problem with the so-called science. The missing heat. Nobody answered.
That's because you haven't got a clue.

If ''science'' wants to convince me that the climate alarmists are right, then they have to come up with an answer. And explain why the models didn't immediately point to where the heat actually is.

Fuck, they are modelling heat, and they can't find the heat. Is that REALLY science in action?

I gave two small pieces of empirical evidence in my post that don't require plots or citations. Moreover, I have seen many posts on this forum giving evidence of climate change. It's not my fault if you can't see the neon signs flashing before your eyes.

As for my understanding of science, I'd say it's rather well developed considering it is what I do on a daily basis.

[mistermack]

Macdoc, you're the joke of the climate debate. Copying and pasting isn't an argument.

How on earth did you get the impression that nobody knew about the oceans holding heat.
You seem to think that everybody else knows nothing.

THE OCEANS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CLIMATE MODELS.

Can't you get even simple facts into your head? If the missing heat has moved into the oceans, it means that THE MODELS ARE WRONG. Did you think that the climate models excluded the oceans? For fuck's sake.
What I'm pointing to, is the fact that the missing heat isn't in the atmosphere, it's not in the surface waters of the ocean, they are accurately monitored. How could it get from the atmosphere, to the deep ocean, without warming the surface waters?
Even if has done that, it destroys the climate models that are at the heart of all the doom and gloom.

While it's fine to keep STUDYING the climate of the Earth, they should shut the fuck up with the predictions, till they actually understand the mechanisms a lot better.

[mistermack]

I gave two small pieces of empirical evidence in my post that don't require plots or citations. Moreover, I have seen many posts on this forum giving evidence of climate change. It's not my fault if you can't see the neon signs flashing before your eyes.

As for my understanding of science, I'd say it's rather well developed considering it is what I do on a daily basis.

Well, duuuuh, good for you.
Evidence of climate change is meaningless. The question isn't whether the climate has changed. It's what caused it, and whether the predictions of future warming are valid.
That's the big question. Can climate scientists accurately predict the climate.
The answer is no.

They can make a thousand predictions, and get one right. I could do that.
I want to see them make one prediction, agreed throughout the climate world, and for it to be right.
None of that is going to happen.

[pErvinalia]

You can spout all you like about people ignoring science. That's not an argument. It's just a baseless claim. No evidence offered whatsoever.
Just like the Jesus claim. Or the thousands of others.
If you actually understood science, you would know that to propose something, you need to back it up.
Nobody on this site has ever backed up their claims.

Umm, MacDoc regularly (as he did in this thread) provides the evidence. You clowns just refuse to accept it.

I pointed out a problem with the so-called science. The missing heat. Nobody answered.
That's because you haven't got a clue.

That "problem" has been answered millions of times. You ignore it every time.

[macdoc]

That would be the case....I think the term is wilfully blind.

[subversive science]

Can climate scientists accurately predict the climate.
The answer is no.

Climate models predicted the climate response to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo rather accurately. A five second google search would have kept your foot out of your mouth.

[macdoc]

Can climate scientists accurately predict the climate.
The answer is no.

the answer is yes within error bars and when you postulate a certain amount of C02 being released....something you seem not to comprehend. The variable is human activity.

Here is the 1981 prediction...plotted against the reality.

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%... It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The "global warming hypothesis" has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

Now - admit you are full of shit about anything to do with climate knowledge and get on with proposing equally amusing solutions....

[mistermack]

Can climate scientists accurately predict the climate.
The answer is no.

Climate models predicted the climate response to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo rather accurately. A five second google search would have kept your foot out of your mouth.

I've heard that kind of bollocks many times.
Firstly, predicting a climate response to a major incident isn't predicting the climate. There's a world of difference.
But secondly, when you actually look at the ''predictions'' they generally turn out to be made AFTER the incident. And that was done over and over, after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
I notice you give no reference for what model predicted the response to an eruption that hadn't happened yet. How did they know the size or time of year, or type of eruption? Are you claiming that they got all that right, and then ran an accurate model of that exact eruption, and the climate effect?

Lets see your reference for that.

I think you're falling for the old trick of running the model after the event, and calling it a ''prediction''.

[Tero]

Nothing has changed since 2010. It's still a fucking line and it goes up.


If there is nothing else, I'LL CHECK BACK IN A YEAR and the line will still be going up.

[Warren Dew]

Yeah, fuck you science!

Actual science would say that when the predictions are wrong, you'd reject the theory.

[pErvinalia]

Well these are based on models, and models are only as good as their algorithms, computing power, and the inputs they get. As inputs get better (and algorithms and computing power get more advanced) the models get better. It's absolutely no surprise that older models have larger error margins. And as long as those error margins are accepted, then it's a valid scientific process. There's a fallacious line of reason that denialists love to use - that is, one model was once wrong (or two or three were) therefore all models are therefore wrong. It's idiotic thinking, but the kind you expect from imbecilic denialists.