Climate Change Research

OK gone through nearly all of it.

With the utmost respect to Dr Richard Lindzen and his work regarding the QBO among other research, I feel he's brushed over a few of the topics brought up and been quite vague.

While the points about chasing funding, steering the narrative for institutions is a big worry, from my point of view he's missing the overall point.

A changing climate will bring food insecurity, water insecurity, energy insecurity as the increasing number of humans battle over the shifting fertile and water abundant areas. Hell, look at the current and past shortages of vegetables and food we've seen with the recent country wide flooding.

While he acknowledges the greenhouse effect though says it only really affects the tropical regions, the tropics and higher latitudes are linked.

One obvious example not looking at the atmospheric feedbacks is the the creep of warmer tropical waters further south/north away from the equator, further than they have in observational history. Tropical species also shifting north/south with this change, getting into areas which have never been documented before.

Yes the Earth can deal with any change in temperature and try and balance itself out, but we're the one's who will suffer.

The greater the energy that's absorbed and held within the system (Earth), the greater the swings in variability will be, ie more volatile weather as we've been witnessing across Australia the last decade or so. The cost will be past onto us, and not just financially. Quality of life will be impacted.

He dismisses feed-back loops but they are there, again it's just the world trying to balance itself out but becoming more volatile as it does so.

Modelling does have limitations as he's pointed out but year on year, improvements to the seasonal and long-range models are being done and will continue to evolve.

I think as long as we all try to do our bit in regards to trying to look after our own path of turf and lessen our individual footprint, it's all for the better.

From what I've observed with my own eyes along with sifting through various data year after year as well as digesting posts and tweets from those way smarter and more clued in that I am, it's obvious that the climate of the planet is changing, some for the better but others for the worse.

Nice post Craig.

Thanks Craig

Re your post, Craig:

"The world trying to balance itself out, becoming more volatile in the process..." I think Richard Lindzen's point was that it balances itself out, and doesn't necessarily become more volatile in the process.

I think it would be disingenuous, even patronising, to suggest that RL believes that there are no energy fluxes between the tropics and polar regions (re Greenhouse Effect a tropics issue). I'll have to listen to that part again to fully get his point.

Re feedback loops, he does not dismiss them, but thinks they are grossly overcooked in the current narrative, and used to corrupt the modelling.

Speaking of which, I thought many of the points raised were a good indication of how a complex message (e.g. full IPCC report) through many iterations (abridged report; precis; bullet points; MSM headlines; alarmist catch cry) gets watered down or even totally perverted.

Numerical modelling is incredible, but as I for one see every day in my job it is only as good as the data, the parametrisation, and the conceptual modelling behind it. Unfortunately most people - like my younger colleagues - have abandoned God and found NWP (Numerical Weather Prediction), so to speak. Fitting reality to the NWP is not the answer, and that goes for all science.

I listened to it with an open mind, not trying to have a certain world view confirmed, and was richly rewarded. If the last three years have taught me anything it's the importance of being able to do that, as science became coopted in the service of anyone with an agenda.

"I think as long as we all try to do our bit in regards to trying to look after our own path of turf and lessen our individual footprint, it's all for the better." I don't think anybody would argue with that, but that was never argued against, neither by RL nor JP.

This was written before my first cuppa tea, and after busy days at work, so may not be my most coherent and focused work.

Ever heard of Bex, bro?

Less cryptic, please?

And a stiff whisky

@Craig. Just going back to the Professor Plimer article that I posted last week or so where you said:

“ What's his hypothesis on the recent warming of oceans and climates world wide?”

I think on the climate time scale that he is looking at he would say that the recent warming is just noise. Climate change is due to factors beyond our control. Climate is always changing and and it will continue to do so.

Researching renewable energy is a good idea but not trying to force it into the grid too quickly with subsidies and populist policies that will damage the economy.

Plimer has form.
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/geologist-misleads-with-climate-change-...
And a bit of self interest too...
"Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012. According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars."
https://www.smh.com.au/business/a-resourceful-climate-sceptic-20100212-n...

https://www.willyweather.com.au/news/96304/perth+tree+conference+investi...

Get the trees back into the cities. File this one under 'urban heat island effect'.