AGW - anthropogenic global warming.

anthropogenic - created by people or caused by human activity: anthropogenic pollution.

a thread to the facts, articles ...etc around AGW. (to start again without the noise)

Article showing that a new field in science is expanding to assign events to be due to AGW.

Scientists Can Now Blame Individual Natural Disasters on Climate Change
Extreme event attribution is one of the most rapidly expanding areas of climate science

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-now-blame-individual-natural-disasters-on-climate-change/

......

And as the science continues to mature, it may have ramifications for society. Legal experts suggest that attribution studies could play a major role in lawsuits brought by citizens against companies, industries or even governments. They could help reshape climate adaptation policies throughout a country or even the world. And perhaps more immediately, the young field of research could be capturing the public's attention in ways that long-term projections for the future cannot.

"I think the public and many policymakers don't really take those 100-year forecasts very seriously," said Allen, who is now one of the world's leading experts in attribution science. "They are much more seriously interested in the question of what is happening now and why—which boils down to attribution."

.....

Future floods are less likely to go uninvestigated. According to Christidis, the Met Office scientist, extreme event attribution is not only a matter of scientific advancement but a public obligation.
"Every time we have a high-impact, catastrophic, perhaps extreme event happening, people are invariably asking the question, 'Is this climate change?'" Christidis said.

"The whole science of event attribution developed so that we can provide scientifically robust answers to these questions. If we the experts don't do this, then there will be people who are not qualified who will go and fill in the gaps. So this is the very important challenge that we are called to face."

While the forecasting models are never accurate, people and government may listen more if recent events can be attributed (if they are) to AGW. People only understand what happens to them and they can assess the cost in lives and money to determine if something should be done if the projections show, it will only get worse.

What a crock. They even mention the California drought of 2010 as an example.

Yet California has a history of  drought.

"But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.

The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought-repeats.html

Maybe that was due to AGW too. ;)

Scientists can blame? Will it stick?

Then of course there were floods on the Downs in England, but that was because they didn't keep the rivers clear. Sediment build up.

Hi Super Nova,
there is strong evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Please feel free to present as much evidence as you want.

lee wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 7:12pm:

What a crock. They even mention the California drought of 2010 as an example. Yet California has a history of  drought. "But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries. The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought-repeats.html Maybe that was due to AGW too. ;) Scientists can blame? Will it stick? Then of course there were floods on the Downs in England, but that was because they didn't keep the rivers clear. Sediment build up.

Hi lee,

It is a good point you raise that we have a history of extreme events. I am showing that maybe if we can acurately attribute some to AGW then maybe we (normal citizens) need to understand our response. Doing nothing is not an option. Being a headless chook is also not an option.

So balance is needed in the debate and then when it is clear, action that is balanced and appropriate is needed, to avoid the worst case scenarios.

I remember reading up on evolution and creationism and the different approaches and I finally got to a big answer, peer reviews, evolution about 10 years ago had 1000’s of peer reviews and creationism about 3 and 2 them the guy was in jail for fraud.
So instead on biquring so much, why not quote some peer reviews on for and against instead of newspaper articles and home spun antidotes.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:

I remember reading up on evolution and creationism and the different approaches and I finally got to a big answer, peer reviews, evolution about 10 years ago had 1000’s of peer reviews and creationism about 3 and 2 then the guy was in jail for fraud. So instead on biquring so much, why not quote some peer reviews on for and against instead of newspaper articles and home spun antidotes.

Agw is real but it's only part of the puzzle.

We should be striving for clean energy because pollution is a known.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:

I remember reading up on evolution and creationism and the different approaches and I finally got to a big answer, peer reviews, evolution about 10 years ago had 1000’s of peer reviews and creationism about 3 and 2 them the guy was in jail for fraud. So instead on biquring so much, why not quote some peer reviews on for and against instead of newspaper articles and home spun antidotes.

Good idea. I hope to make the debate less like the previous so it is not just a matter of AGW religion and more on something tangable.. and not lies, damn lies and statistics only. (like, my graph is bigger than your graph but my error margin is smaller)

Gordon wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Agw is real but it's only part of the puzzle. We should be striving for clean energy because pollution is a known.

Yes the co2 debate is a great smoke screen for the fossil fuel industry.

Gordon wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Agw is real but it's only part of the puzzle. We should be striving for clean energy because pollution is a known.

Definitely -
that's why renewable energy should be used &
research put into a large scale Thorium power station.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 7:54pm:

Gordon wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:49pm: Agw is real but it's only part of the puzzle. We should be striving for clean energy because pollution is a known. Definitely - that's why renewable energy should be used & research put into a large scale Thorium power station.

One thing you will notice is lefty atheists are catastrophisng agw because all religions and cultures need some kind of end times story.  Climate change is theirs.

I believe in agw, I believe in renewables and I also believe no matter how much climate changes, humans will continue to flourish.

Super Nova wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 7:39pm:

Hi lee, It is a good point you raise that we have a history of extreme events. I am showing that maybe if we can acurately attribute some to AGW then maybe we (normal citizens) need to understand our response. Doing nothing is not an option. Being a headless chook is also not an option. So balance is needed in the debate and then when it is clear, action that is balanced and appropriate is needed, to avoid the worst case scenarios.

You go from " if we can acurately attribute some to AGW " to "Doing nothing is not an option".

Doing nothing would be an option if you can't prove AGW, or AGW caused extreme events.

And the Arctic -

" THE ARCTIC IS MELTING

“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated….

(see additional*)

….. this affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.” A request was made for the Royal Society to assemble an expedition to go and investigate."

"Additional…

”Mr. Scoresby, a very intelligent young man who commands a whaling vessel from Whitby observed last year that 2000 square leagues (a league is 3 miles) of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared. The same person who has never been before able to penetrate to the westward of the Meridian of Greenwich in these latitudes was this year able to proceed to 10°, 30′W where he saw the coast of East Greenland and entertained no doubt of being able to reach the land had not his duty to his employers made it necessary for him to abandon the undertaking.

This, with information of a similar nature derived from other sources; the unusual abundance of ice islands that have during the last two summers been brought by currents from Davies Streights (sic) into the Atlantic.

The ice which has this year surrounded the northern coast of Ireland ( see footnotes1) in unusual quantity and remained there unthawed till the middle of August, with the floods which have during the whole summer inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in snowy mountains.”

President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817

Wildfires -


Quote:

Fire is an essential Earth system process that alters ecosystem and atmospheric composition. Here we assessed long-term fire trends using multiple satellite data sets. We found that global burned area declined by 24.3 ± 8.8% over the past 18 years. The estimated decrease in burned area remained robust after adjusting for precipitation variability and was largest in savannas. Agricultural expansion and intensification were primary drivers of declining fire activity. Fewer and smaller fires reduced aerosol concentrations, modified vegetation structure, and increased the magnitude of the terrestrial carbon sink. Fire models were unable to reproduce the pattern and magnitude of observed declines, suggesting that they may overestimate fire emissions in future projections. Using economic and demographic variables, we developed a conceptual model for predicting fire in human-dominated landscapes.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1356

Gordon wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 8:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:54pm: Gordon wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:49pm: Agw is real but it's only part of the puzzle. We should be striving for clean energy because pollution is a known. Definitely - that's why renewable energy should be used & research put into a large scale Thorium power station. One thing you will notice is lefty atheists are catastrophisng agw because all religions and cultures need some kind of end times story.  Climate change is theirs. I believe in agw, I believe in renewables and I also believe no matter how much climate changes, humans will continue to flourish.

Then again - the climate models are so wrong that exactly the opposite could happen -
instead of getting hotter it could get colder or
we could have climate extremes at both ends of the scale.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 9:54pm:

Gordon wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 8:01pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:54pm: Gordon wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:49pm: Agw is real but it's only part of the puzzle. We should be striving for clean energy because pollution is a known. Definitely - that's why renewable energy should be used & research put into a large scale Thorium power station. One thing you will notice is lefty atheists are catastrophisng agw because all religions and cultures need some kind of end times story.  Climate change is theirs. I believe in agw, I believe in renewables and I also believe no matter how much climate changes, humans will continue to flourish. Then again - the climate models are so wrong that exactly the opposite could happen - instead of getting hotter it could get colder or we could have climate extremes at both ends of the scale.

The proof please Bobby, some peer reviews would be nice  :)
When u say thorium I assume your talking about various gen4 nuclear stations being researched atm ?
Wouldnt it be better to refer to the reactor as in MSR (molten salt Reactor) ?

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 7:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 9:54pm: Gordon wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 8:01pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:54pm: Gordon wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:49pm: Agw is real but it's only part of the puzzle. We should be striving for clean energy because pollution is a known. Definitely - that's why renewable energy should be used & research put into a large scale Thorium power station. One thing you will notice is lefty atheists are catastrophisng agw because all religions and cultures need some kind of end times story.  Climate change is theirs. I believe in agw, I believe in renewables and I also believe no matter how much climate changes, humans will continue to flourish. Then again - the climate models are so wrong that exactly the opposite could happen - instead of getting hotter it could get colder or we could have climate extremes at both ends of the scale. The proof please Bobby, some peer reviews would be nice  :)

333 pages of evidence here for you to look through -
longer than most books:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603949/0#0

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 7:40am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 1st, 2018 at 7:36am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 9:54pm: Gordon wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 8:01pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:54pm: Gordon wrote on Apr 30th, 2018 at 7:49pm: Agw is real but it's only part of the puzzle. We should be striving for clean energy because pollution is a known. Definitely - that's why renewable energy should be used & research put into a large scale Thorium power station. One thing you will notice is lefty atheists are catastrophisng agw because all religions and cultures need some kind of end times story.  Climate change is theirs. I believe in agw, I believe in renewables and I also believe no matter how much climate changes, humans will continue to flourish. Then again - the climate models are so wrong that exactly the opposite could happen - instead of getting hotter it could get colder or we could have climate extremes at both ends of the scale. The proof please Bobby, some peer reviews would be nice  :) 333 pages of evidence here for you to look through - longer than most books: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603949/0#0

yes not evidence, need peer reviews not youtube or opinions or biased charts, real peer review, the ONLY real truths because they can be scrutinized, opinions cant.
I just looked at your link and this was in it

The Mechanic
Gold Member

Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 12049
Gender:

Re: New Ice Age..
Reply #3 - May 31st, 2016 at 7:45pm
 
gees.. haven't the Global Warming Nutters gone quiet..   

I dont think that can be considered proof its justs a lot of banter.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 7:51am:

yes not evidence, need peer reviews not youtube or opinions or biased charts, real peer review, the ONLY real truths because they can be scrutinized, opinions cant.

There is plenty of scientific stuff there too.
But - I would like this thread to take off -
let's see all the AGW evidence -
will we get 333 pages on this thread?

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 7:55am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 1st, 2018 at 7:51am: yes not evidence, need peer reviews not youtube or opinions or biased charts, real peer review, the ONLY real truths because they can be scrutinized, opinions cant. There is plenty of scientific stuff there too. But - I would like this thread to take off - let's see all the AGW evidence - will we get 333 pages on this thread?

ok here r a few
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

this article seams to be the source of the new ice age thinking (i know not peer reviewed but hey)
https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

ok booby we r talking 50000 -60000 peer reviews, not 300 pages of fat guys behind computers insulting each other.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

I'm sure there are peer reviews against as well, just not many climate scientist have put them forward.

Thanks Don,
keep up the good work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change



When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[22]


When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[22]

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 8:31am:

ok here r a few James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

1. How many explicitly said it was AGW?

2. Is that abstracts again or scientists?

We could go to Cook et al 2013 -

"Abstract
Download video Download transcript

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Similar sized study. So 97.1% of 32.6% of abstracts, not scientists, supported the consensus position.

It subsequently gets reported as 97% of scientists. Don't you just love the way they report consensus?

Interesting article. Is it AGW.... well I think so.

Shock and Thaw—Alaskan Sea Ice Just Took a Steep, Unprecedented Dive
Weather conditions and a boost from global warming led to the stunning record low ice cover in winter 2018

April should be prime walrus hunting season for the native villages that dot Alaska’s remote western coast. In years past the winter sea ice where the animals rest would still be abundant, providing prime targets for subsistence hunters. But this year sea-ice coverage as of late April was more like what would be expected for mid-June, well into the melt season. These conditions are the continuation of a winter-long scarcity of sea ice in the Bering Sea—a decline so stark it has stunned researchers who have spent years watching Arctic sea ice dwindle due to climate change.

Winter sea ice cover in the Bering Sea did not just hit a record low in 2018; it was half that of the previous lowest winter on record (2001), says John Walsh, chief scientist of the International Arctic Research Center at The University of Alaska Fairbanks. “There’s never ever been anything remotely like this for sea ice” in the Bering Sea going back more than 160 years, says Rick Thoman, an Alaska-based climatologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

more here ==> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shock-and-thaw-alaskan-sea-ice-just-took-a-steep-unprecedented-dive/

---

Changes in the US.

We need to see then assess the changes we see and determine if AGW is responsible. if so, it could lead us to act. Real impact may overcome the collective denial of AGW. I live in hope.

A Nation Divided: Arid/Humid Climate Boundary in U.S. Creeps Eastward
The stark climatic border in the U.S. separating the sultry east from the dry west is rapidly shifting—a change that could have a significant future impact

To travel westward across the U.S. is to experience a striking landscape metamorphosis. Stately hardwood trees give way to squat shrubs, verdant cornfields to brown wheat and lush grasslands to cacti and creosote bush. The air dries out and the land is often parched. This rather abrupt shift from the humid east to arid west occurs along a border that slices neatly through the Canadian province of Manitoba, then the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and into eastern Mexico. The divide is so stark airline passengers can see it—a patchwork quilt of green farms on one side, a vast expanse of brown and gold on the other.

And now this boundary is on the move, creeping east as global temperatures rise, according to new research published last month in Earth Interactions. Given the line’s historical role in shaping U.S. westward expansion, its shift could alter the agriculture that plays a crucial role in the economy of the Great Plains states.

More here ==> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-nation-divided-arid-humid-climate-boundary-in-u-s-creeps-eastward/

Super Nova wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 3:56pm:

Winter sea ice cover in the Bering Sea did not just hit a record low in 2018;

Oh only 160 years. I guess they forgot the logs of the Hudson's Bay Company. Which are replete with weather, ice conditions etc for the Bering Strait. ;)

From your reference -

"A confluence of conditions—including warm air and ocean temperatures, along with persistent storms—set the stage for this dramatic downturn in a region that to date has not been one of the main contributors to the overall reduction of Arctic sea ice. Whereas a degree of random weather variability teed up this remarkable winter, the background warming of the Arctic is what provides the “extra kick” to reach such unheard-of extremes, Walsh says."

Super Nova wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 4:04pm:

A Nation Divided: Arid/Humid Climate Boundary in U.S. Creeps Eastward

From the actual study -

"The 100th meridian bisects the Great Plains of the United States and effectively divides the continent into more arid western and less arid eastern halves and is well expressed in terms of vegetation, land hydrology, crops, and the farm economy. Here, it is considered how this arid–humid divide will change in intensity and location during the current century under rising greenhouse gases. [/highlightI]t is first shown that state-of-the-art[highlight] climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project generally underestimate the degree of aridity of the United States and simulate an arid–humid divide that is too diffuse. These biases are traced to excessive precipitation and evapotranspiration and inadequate blocking of eastward moisture flux by the Pacific coastal ranges and Rockies. Bias-corrected future projections are developed that modify observationally based measures of aridity by the model-projected fractional changes in aridity. Aridity increases across the United States, and the aridity gradient weakens. "

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/EI-D-17-0012.1

So it is a projection, based on models. There is no observational data at all.

Once again the "Scientific" American shows it is unscientific.

lee wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 4:21pm:

Super Nova wrote on May 3rd, 2018 at 3:56pm: Winter sea ice cover in the Bering Sea did not just hit a record low in 2018; Oh only 160 years. I guess they forgot the logs of the Hudson's Bay Company. Which are replete with weather, ice conditions etc for the Bering Strait. ;) From your reference - "A confluence of conditions—including warm air and ocean temperatures, along with persistent storms—set the stage for this dramatic downturn in a region that to date has not been one of the main contributors to the overall reduction of Arctic sea ice. Whereas a degree of random weather variability teed up this remarkable winter, the background warming of the Arctic is what provides the “extra kick” to reach such unheard-of extremes, Walsh says."

Lee,

I guess 160 years is what we have data for. Anecdotal evidence of loggers doesn't cut it but i see your point.

I will run the data provided but the point is, it is tracking what has happened since we started recording. Something is happening, what is the root cause?

lee wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 4:32pm:

Super Nova wrote on May 3rd, 2018 at 4:04pm: A Nation Divided: Arid/Humid Climate Boundary in U.S. Creeps Eastward From the actual study - "The 100th meridian bisects the Great Plains of the United States and effectively divides the continent into more arid western and less arid eastern halves and is well expressed in terms of vegetation, land hydrology, crops, and the farm economy. Here, it is considered how this arid–humid divide will change in intensity and location during the current century under rising greenhouse gases. [/highlightI]t is first shown that state-of-the-art[highlight] climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project generally underestimate the degree of aridity of the United States and simulate an arid–humid divide that is too diffuse. These biases are traced to excessive precipitation and evapotranspiration and inadequate blocking of eastward moisture flux by the Pacific coastal ranges and Rockies. Bias-corrected future projections are developed that modify observationally based measures of aridity by the model-projected fractional changes in aridity. Aridity increases across the United States, and the aridity gradient weakens. " https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/EI-D-17-0012.1 So it is a projection, based on models. There is no observational data at all. Once again the "Scientific" American shows it is unscientific.

It is scientific to declare their ajustments in their findings and the projection models. So I don't see your point. if you declare it, not hide it, it is an assumption like any other. That doesn't mean it is to be dismissed because you want a degree of clarity on a chaotic system that is not possible.

Super Nova wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 7:54pm:

It is scientific to declare their ajustments in their findings and the projection models. So I don't see your point. if you declare it, not hide it, it is an assumption like any other. That doesn't mean it is to be dismissed because you want a degree of clarity on a chaotic system that is not possible.

It simply doesn't reflect reality.

"And so, the study begs the question: how has growing season precipitation changed in this 100th meridian zone? Using NOAA’s own official statewide average precipitation statistics, this is how the rainfall observations for the primary agricultural states in the zone (North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma) have fared every year between 1900 and 2017:"

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/100th-Meridian-states-JJA-precip-550x413.jpg

"What we see is that there has been, so far, no evidence of decreasing precipitation amounts exactly where the authors claim it will occur (and according to press reports, has already occurred).

To the authors’ credit, in their final “Discussion and Conclusions” section of the research paper they admit:

    “First, we have shown that state-of-the-art models simulate the aridity gradient across North America poorly.”

    “Second, while current Earth system models predict widespread declines in soil moisture and increases in continental aridity, they also simulate increases in net primary productivity. This is because, within the models, the beneficial effects on photosynthesis and water-use efficiency of increased CO2 overwhelm the effects of increased temperature and vapor pressure deficit.” (emphasis added) "

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/the-100th-meridian-agricultural-scare-another-example-of-media-hype-exceeding-reality/

Super Nova wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 7:52pm:

I guess 160 years is what we have data for. Anecdotal evidence of loggers doesn't cut it but i see your point.

Yes. It is only anecdotal evidence on which people relied to survive the frozen north. Probably full of errors. /sarc

lee wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 8:34pm:

“Second, while current Earth system models predict widespread declines in soil moisture and increases in continental aridity, they also simulate increases in net primary productivity. This is because, within the models, the beneficial effects on photosynthesis and water-use efficiency of increased CO2 overwhelm the effects of increased temperature and vapor pressure deficit.” (emphasis added) "

I love this one. We can say AGW is good because increased CO2 will make our plant grow faster and they will utilize the water better..... that is a laughable argument.

Super Nova wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 9:06pm:

lee wrote on May 3rd, 2018 at 8:34pm:     “Second, while current Earth system models predict widespread declines in soil moisture and increases in continental aridity, they also simulate increases in net primary productivity. This is because, within the models, the beneficial effects on photosynthesis and water-use efficiency of increased CO2 overwhelm the effects of increased temperature and vapor pressure deficit.” (emphasis added) " I love this one. We can say AGW is good because increased CO2 will make our plant grow faster and they will utilize the water better..... that is a laughable argument.

Really? Why is that? Plants use less water when there is more CO2. Proven in Greenhouses. Now as to how much warming CO2 will cause; who knows. Recent papers have put lower bounds on ECS and TCR. And the CMIP5 models are still running hot by a factor of about 2.

"Using infilled, globally-complete temperature data gives slightly higher estimates; a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5−95%: 1.15−2.7 K) and 1.33 K for TCR (5−95%:1.0−1.90 K). These ECS estimates reflect climate feedbacks over the historical period, assumed time-invariant. Allowing for possible time-varying climate feedbacks increases the median ECS estimate to 1.76 K (5−95%: 1.2−3.1 K), using infilled temperature data. Possible biases from non-unit forcing efficacy, temperature estimation issues and variability in sea-surface temperature change patterns are examined and found to be minor when using globally-complete temperature data. These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period. "

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

What does "models are still running hot by a factor of about 2" mean?

Super Nova wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 9:30pm:

What does "models are still running hot by a factor of about 2" mean?

It means models are running twice as hot as observations.

BTW - you did notice that the quote to which you referred was from the Paper that was cited by Scientific American?

So it looks like you believe parts of the paper and disagree with other parts of the paper.

How sad.

Agw is a hoax. Total bollox.



https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1676570658430386176

But the Cult of Warming grows ever more extreme...https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/green-mafia-loses-collective-mind ::)