Ho hum, November was the warmest on record

[BonzaiDuck]

It would seem to me that the only known recorded civilization of humans, excluding Cro-Magnon cave-paintings, is about 10,000 years old. The tail end of the very Last Glacial Maximum -- the Ice Age -- was 12,000 years ago. So since that time, assume the environment has been at a certain equilibrium, excepting mini-ice-ages and other minor variations.

I'd be concerned about dying forests, fisheries and other aspects. Climate anomalies with costs and risks shouldn't be discounted.

 

[Jaskalas]

Deflect and deny. I never said Greeland was the globe. I said its rate of melting doubled during the pause.

Say it with me. Weather != Climate. Region != Globe. Nice try though.
As you can clearly see from my previous post, Greenland was a lot warmer the past decade. Today it's not. Do you wonder what the WEATHER in that REGION will be like tomorrow?

OMG... I mean, you doubled down on seeing Climate from your window. You actually stand by your absurd abuse of a "scientific" claim. That's just amazing coming from you. And for what? You drop all pretense of sound mind and judgement over my post in which I lay out our falsifiable theory and I definitely state that we're waiting a few years for it to prove itself? Has that notion incensed you beyond all reason?

It's rather astonishing that you'd have this reaction and stoop to such blatant anti-science.

 

[bshole]

bshole the problem is you ignore the costs for every supposed benefit.

More biodiversity! Ignore the preceding extinction event
More tundra land! Ignore the loss of more valuable coastal land
More CO2 for plants! Ignore the cost of changing all those farms and crops over to the crops that benefit from the increased CO2 and that will grow better in the changing environment.

You come across as one of those financial guys in 00's. Real estate will only go up up up!

Till it doesn't. And then you'll pass the cost on to the poorest who can't move from the coast and can't change their substance level farm over to better crops.

Ok here is a reality check. We have ethanol right now because AGW proponents (funded by ADM of course) forced it on us by manipulating the political system. They bypassed the free market, they bypassed the American people and accomplished this travesty by fiat.

It has been demonstrated beyond all scientific doubt that ethanol does not do a damn thing to combat climate change (which we shouldn't be trying to combat in the first place).

And now comes the law of unintended consequences. Masses of land have been turned over into corn production for ethanol (about half of corn is for that purpose I believe). These are corn crops that need not have been planted if corn was used for just food. We are overplanting corn because of AGW proponents.

The end result..... THE RAPID AND POSSIBLE EXTINCTION of bees. The worst nightmare scenario proposed by the AGW proponents is nothing compared to the threat that they have exposed us to by force of law.

I don't trust AGW proponents because they haven't a single fucking clue about the long term results of their draconian manipulations of our political and market systems.

But what's causing this decline? The scientists found it may partly be the conversion of bee habitat into cropland. In eleven key states where the new study showed bees in decline, the amount of land tilled to grow corn spiked by 200 percent in just five years. This replaced grasslands and pastures with croplands.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/a...g-pressure-farms-what-killing-pollinators.htm

 

[Jaskalas]

The end result..... THE RAPID AND POSSIBLE EXTINCTION of bees. The worst nightmare scenario proposed by the AGW proponents is nothing compared to the threat that they have exposed us to by force of law.

I think you skipped the part where ethanol somehow harmed bees.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Ok here is a reality check. We have ethanol right now because AGW proponents (funded by ADM of course) forced it on us by manipulating the political system. They bypassed the free market, they bypassed the American people and accomplished this travesty by fiat.

It has been demonstrated beyond all scientific doubt that ethanol does not do a damn thing to combat climate change (which we shouldn't be trying to combat in the first place).

And now comes the law of unintended consequences. Masses of land have been turned over into corn production for ethanol (about half of corn is for that purpose I believe). These are corn crops that need not have been planted if corn was used for just food. We are overplanting corn because of AGW proponents.

The end result..... THE RAPID AND POSSIBLE EXTINCTION of bees. The worst nightmare scenario proposed by the AGW proponents is nothing compared to the threat that they have exposed us to by force of law.

I don't trust AGW proponents because they haven't a single fucking clue about the long term results of their draconian manipulations of our political and market systems.



http://www.scienceworldreport.com/a...g-pressure-farms-what-killing-pollinators.htm

Bees just need to learn how to pollinate corn. ADAPT or DIE!!

 

[bshole]

I think you skipped the part where ethanol somehow harmed bees.

That was the last thing I quoted. It was the conversion of large swathes of meadows to grow corn fields for ethanol that caused the problem. Scientists are saying that conversion has had a dramatic impact on bee populations. There would be no need for the new corn fields absent the artificial demand created by ethanol. I just looked it up, 40% of the corn crop is used for ethanol. Remove ethanol, and 40% of the corn fields go away and the bees are safe.

 

[bshole]

Bees just need to learn how to pollinate corn. ADAPT or DIE!!

Kind of good point except that if they die, everything else dies with them including us.

 

[Jaskalas]

That was the last thing I quoted. It was the conversion of large swathes of meadows to grow corn fields for ethanol that caused the problem. Scientists are saying that conversion has had a dramatic impact on bee populations. There would be no need for the new corn fields absent the artificial demand created by ethanol. I just looked it up, 40% of the corn crop is used for ethanol. Remove ethanol, and 40% of the corn fields go away and the bees are safe.

After reading your link it's a piss poor correlation. You'd have to suggest bees only decline in those states where larger amounts of corn have recently been produced. I'm not convinced that's going to hold up. I mean, what if it's true? Sounds like bees will be stressed but otherwise remain just fine in areas that are unaltered by large scale corn production. AKA, not much of a concern if true?

 

[Paratus]

Say it with me. Weather != Climate. Region != Globe. Nice try though.
As you can clearly see from my previous post, Greenland was a lot warmer the past decade. Today it's not. Do you wonder what the WEATHER in that REGION will be like tomorrow?

OMG... I mean, you doubled down on seeing Climate from your window. You actually stand by your absurd abuse of a "scientific" claim. That's just amazing coming from you. And for what? You drop all pretense of sound mind and judgement over my post in which I lay out our falsifiable theory and I definitely state that we're waiting a few years for it to prove itself? Has that notion incensed you beyond all reason?

It's rather astonishing that you'd have this reaction and stoop to such blatant anti-science.

Ok since you won't defend your hypothesis I'll give it a go.

The pause means energy in should be basically equal to energy out over the last decade or so and Greeland is just part of the globe and it's ice loss shouldn't be considered indicative of a global loss of ice.

From this hypothesis we would expect to see gains in ice mass offsetting the loss at Greenland.

During this time global glacier ice loss also increased.

Antartica is a little bit more difficult as some parts are gaining ice and others are losing ice. This study and another done by an ESA satellite show Antartica loss accelerating during the pause. A newer NASA study shows accelerating losses at the coasts being offset by gains in the interior. But the gains decelerated during the pause.

Overall ice loss is occurring around the planet which should be in contradiction to the "pause" hypothesis.

It's possible though all these ice loss measurements are in error. The "pause" hypothesis says there's been no global warming over the last decade which also means no thermal expansion of water. With no thermal expansion and supposedly no ice loss sea level should be roughly constant over the "pause".

From satellite data it looks like the rate of sea level rise actually increased during the pause.

So tldr:

• "Pause" hypothesis states no warming in last 18 years - basically Earth is in energy balance no increase or decrease in total energy
• Rate of global ice loss increased during pause requiring increase in energy
• Rate of sea level rise increased during pause corroborating ice loss and requiring increase in energy
• I am unable to support this hypothesis with observed data

So I failed to support your hypothesis Jasklas with the observed data. Can you please better explain the observed data in terms of the "Pause" hypothesis than current climate science?

 

[Paratus]

Ok here is a reality check. We have ethanol right now because AGW proponents (funded by ADM of course) forced it on us by manipulating the political system. They bypassed the free market, they bypassed the American people and accomplished this travesty by fiat.

It has been demonstrated beyond all scientific doubt that ethanol does not do a damn thing to combat climate change (which we shouldn't be trying to combat in the first place).

And now comes the law of unintended consequences. Masses of land have been turned over into corn production for ethanol (about half of corn is for that purpose I believe). These are corn crops that need not have been planted if corn was used for just food. We are overplanting corn because of AGW proponents.

The end result..... THE RAPID AND POSSIBLE EXTINCTION of bees. The worst nightmare scenario proposed by the AGW proponents is nothing compared to the threat that they have exposed us to by force of law.

I don't trust AGW proponents because they haven't a single fucking clue about the long term results of their draconian manipulations of our political and market systems.



http://www.scienceworldreport.com/a...g-pressure-farms-what-killing-pollinators.htm

I'm not going to argue that corn-ethanol is a good thing. Nor that their lobby didn't take advantage of the situation. But that has nothing to do with what the science tells us is happening with the planet.

Hell Exxon knew this back in the 70's and covered up their own research.

 

[DrPizza]

Ok here is a reality check. We have ethanol right now because AGW proponents (funded by ADM of course) forced it on us by manipulating the political system. They bypassed the free market, they bypassed the American people and accomplished this travesty by fiat.

It has been demonstrated beyond all scientific doubt that ethanol does not do a damn thing to combat climate change (which we shouldn't be trying to combat in the first place).

And now comes the law of unintended consequences. Masses of land have been turned over into corn production for ethanol (about half of corn is for that purpose I believe). These are corn crops that need not have been planted if corn was used for just food. We are overplanting corn because of AGW proponents.

The end result..... THE RAPID AND POSSIBLE EXTINCTION of bees. The worst nightmare scenario proposed by the AGW proponents is nothing compared to the threat that they have exposed us to by force of law.

I don't trust AGW proponents because they haven't a single fucking clue about the long term results of their draconian manipulations of our political and market systems.



http://www.scienceworldreport.com/a...g-pressure-farms-what-killing-pollinators.htm

So, you're worried about the extinction of one animal, but aren't worried about the extinction of hundreds of others that would be a result of global warming? And, if you assume the cause of the decrease in wild bees is due to the decrease in their habitat, that doesn't mean that they are going to go extinct. E.g., cut their food source in half, and you have half as many bees, more or less.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ok since you won't defend your hypothesis I'll give it a go.

You want to talk about melting ice? I think the Satellite data is self evident but let's spell it out. We warmed for about 30 years and hit a plateau. We remain at that peak. More ice is going to melt for decades unless the globe cools down off that peak.

According to the PDO/AMO theory we should remain paused until the AMO flips and then 1960s style cooling happens. These are things I've spoken of before. Nino/Nina is a great time to test the theory as we tend to find a new baseline for global temperature each time they settle. If our data shows it warmer afterwards then we have failed.

If it doesn't warm then, aide from us being right, we're going to want an explanation for why Satellite began diverging when the PDO flipped.

 

[bshole]

So, you're worried about the extinction of one animal, but aren't worried about the extinction of hundreds of others that would be a result of global warming? And, if you assume the cause of the decrease in wild bees is due to the decrease in their habitat, that doesn't mean that they are going to go extinct. E.g., cut their food source in half, and you have half as many bees, more or less.

Actually very much so. If bees die out, incalculable amounts of flora/flauna will follow. Civilization as we know it is unsustainable in the absence of bees. It is really scary to think about. This is an area where DNA science could make a real positive impact. I believe scientists have (or soon will have) the knowledge and ability to genetically modify bees to thrive under the new conditions.

You second point is a good one. I was chicken-littling. It definitely feels good to proclaim a man-made apocalypse brought about by people with an opposing worldview.

For some people, bees are simply an annoyance. They buzz around, crawl inside soda cans, chase people down the street and sometimes even sting. If you’re unlucky enough to be allergic, bees can literally be a lethal threat.
Yet, the simple fact is, if bees didn’t exist, neither would humans. Accordingly, it’s extremely disconcerting that honeybees have been dying at an alarming rate over the past decade or so.

At present, the honeybee population in the United States is less than half of what it was at the cessation of World War II.

This past winter, 23.2 percent of America’s managed honeybee colonies were lost. The figures were worse during the year prior, but bees are still dying at a disturbing rate, and something needs to change.
The US government has stated that bees are now dying at an economically unsustainable rate. Indeed, in the United States alone, bees contribute to $15 billion in crop value. Without them, agriculture as we know it would collapse.

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/humans-need-bees-to-survive/755737/

 

[Paratus]

You want to talk about melting ice? I think the Satellite data is self evident but let's spell it out. We warmed for about 30 years and hit a plateau. We remain at that peak. More ice is going to melt for decades unless the globe cools down off that peak.

According to the PDO/AMO theory we should remain paused until the AMO flips and then 1960s style cooling happens. These are things I've spoken of before. Nino/Nina is a great time to test the theory as we tend to find a new baseline for global temperature each time they settle. If our data shows it warmer afterwards then we have failed.

If it doesn't warm then, aide from us being right, we're going to want an explanation for why Satellite began diverging when the PDO flipped.

So your hypothesis predicts accelerated ice loss and sea level rise during the pause and slower increases during the thirty years of warming?

What physical mechanisms does your hypothesis postulate to explain that phenomena? Is there a lag in the ice loss during the warming periods? Is the melting ice causing the pause through the cooling effect of water changing phase?

Why do you expect cooling like in the 60's when you've stated the surface record is suspect? Did that cooling happen? Was the magnitude in the surface record correct?

Why do we have to wait to see if your hypothesis is correct? Shouldn't your hypothesis be able to describe reality better than mainstream climate science now?

You seem to think that the choice is only between mainstream theory and your hypothesis. There are an infinite number of wrong hypotheses. Some are partially accurate or mostly accurate. Your hypothesis needs to be more accurate than mainstream theory and not just for a single variable like climate sensitivity. It also needs to explain historical records and present measurements across the climate.

 

[OverVolt]

You know you're off to a great start when you have 5 different options for temperature to put in figure 1.

 

[Jaskalas]

...
Is there a lag in the ice loss during the warming periods?

Is that even a question? Ice loss (energy transfer) 101.
And if I'm not mistaken... this is a field you claim to already know.

Is the melting ice causing the pause through the cooling effect of water changing phase?

That's not part of the PDO/AMO far as I'm aware. Our argument would be a majority of warming since 1970s is simply cycled through the ocean and our measurements are not adequate enough to measure it all. Especially not in the pre-argo era (before 2003).

Why do you expect cooling like in the 60's when you've stated the surface record is suspect? Did that cooling happen? Was the magnitude in the surface record correct?

Because that's the theory. That time period coincides with the negative PDO and AMO combo. It came to an end during The Great Pacific Climate Shift when global temps started warming.

We have plenty of empirical evidence of the 1950-60-70s cooling scare.
You cannot just wish away that recent period of history when ice was advancing.

Why do we have to wait to see if your hypothesis is correct?

Because every year the pause continues adds fuel to our argument that you have exaggerated Climate Sensitivity.
Satellites showed a massive rise after the '98 El Nino. Shouldn't they show the same thing again?
Why not?

You seem to think that the choice is only between mainstream theory and your hypothesis.

You are free to submit additional theories with data spanning the past century to back them up.

 

[Paratus]

Is that even a question? Ice loss (energy transfer) 101.
And if I'm not mistaken... this is a field you claim to already know.

I'm not a climate scientist. But in general when a system is in equilibrium the component parts of the system do not increase the rate of energy absorption. The oceans have warmed during the pause per Argo. The surface temperature has warmed. Ice loss rate has increased. Sea level rise rate has increased. Everywhere we take data we see increasing rates of heat retention.

You haven't postulated where the heat came from to double the rate of ice loss during the pause. Show me a corresponding drop in temperature during the pause to account for the energy gained by the ice. If you can't your hypothesis says energy is not conserved. Good luck with that.

That's not part of the PDO/AMO far as I'm aware. Our argument would be a majority of warming since 1970s is simply cycled through the ocean and our measurements are not adequate enough to measure it all. Especially not in the pre-argo era (before 2003).



Because that's the theory. That time period coincides with the negative PDO and AMO combo. It came to an end during The Great Pacific Climate Shift when global temps started warming.

We have plenty of empirical evidence of the 1950-60-70s cooling scare.
You cannot just wish away that recent period of history when ice was advancing.

I don't have to. Mainstream climate science describes the surface temperature record just fine. Solar radiation, greenhouse gases, particulates, etc

You on the other hand have to disregard the surface temperature record, ocean heat content and the rest of the atmosphere to make your hypothesis work.

Because every year the pause continues adds fuel to our argument that you have exaggerated Climate Sensitivity.
Satellites showed a massive rise after the '98 El Nino. Shouldn't they show the same thing again?
Why not?



You are free to submit additional theories with data spanning the past century to back them up.no need for me too. Your the one trying to say you've got a better hypothesis.

See
Above

 

[Paratus]

I'll also add, since you trust Argo, that just since 2003 the increase in OHC dwarfs every other source of stored heat so how do you reconcile that with your view that there's been a pause between now and then.

Those are mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[OverVolt]

Isn't the land temperature record kinda useless if the ocean has such a higher heat capacity? All of a sudden its all about the heat exchange with the ocean. Its just... flawed from the beginning. Which temperature actually matters? Global? Surface? Ocean? Tree rings? Historical? Infrared emitted? Whats the actual metric that is important?

It SHOULD underscore just how many feedback mechanisms there are in the climate but that doesn't seem to stop *certain groups we know* from making wild predictions .

Basically all the positive feedback forcings seem to be exaggerated. CO2 will trap infrared heat, okay, on the same page. And from there the assumptions go wild with melting ice, thus more heat absorbed from the sun, thus even more melting ice, oh my gawd we're going to boil off the ocean like venus.

Saw an interesting read about long living complicated systems. The general trend is that they don't spiral off into positive feedback loops due to perturbations. I don't know why climate science gets away with assuming otherwise.

 

[OverVolt]

I'll also add, since you trust Argo, that just since 2003 the increase in OHC dwarfs every other source of stored heat so how do you reconcile that with your view that there's been a pause between now and then.

Those are mutually exclusive ideas.

And is it just a rounding error compared to geothermal heat or what? Next you guys will be saying the mantle is too hot .