The question is whom and what to believe!

There is no scope of ‘belief’ or ‘disbelief’ in science. ‘Majority agreement’ is also not the base of science. It is based on the observation, identification, description, and experimental investigations. Climate science is highly complicated and interdisciplinary. Various processes like biotic processes, natural variations (such as variations in solar radiations, plate movements, volcanic eruptions etc.) and some human activities have impacts on the climate. A multidisciplinary project is needed to study the climate; researchers from various disciplines, as mentioned by Dr.Anthony are required for a complete study and to come out with the truths of climate change.

Regards

The Guardian is reporting on it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/15/leaked-un-draft-report-warns-of-urgent-need-to-cut-global-warming

Hello Anju Baroth,

I had predicted since a year ago that the current climate regime following the end of the warming hiatus (1998 - 2015) will be dominated by intense warming which is expected to last until about 2042, coupled with record-breaking El Ninos. Therefore, this 'leaked' IPCC prediction doesn't come as a surprise to me. However, the driver of this warming regime is NOT CO2, but largely the result of the lagged effect of solar irradiance maximum on ocean heat content. The increase in atmospheric Co2 is also to a large extent the lagged effect of solar-induced ocean-biosphere warming, coupled with El Nino induced strong out-gassing of a CO2.

Cheers

Leaked IPCC draft report predicts 1.5°c warming by 2043

Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski writes how the German flagship weekly has obtained a version of a draft of the upcoming Summary 6th IPCC Report on Climate, the so-called “1.5°C Special Climate Report”, whose final version is expected to be made public in October this year.

https://www.thegwpf.com/leaked-ipcc-draft-report-predicts-1-5c-warming-by-2043/

Thanks Dr. Ken, I must digress from the original topic of this thread to respond to your comment. Don't you think the increase in outgassing during la Nina could be a lagged effect of a previous El Nino event due to thermal catalysis (in whatever specific case you are referring to?). In my personal observations, there is a very strong coherence between El Nino and spikes in CO2 concentration. Take the case of 1997/98 and 2015/16 for-example (there are lots of publications that show this link). Moreover, please don't get me wrong, I am in no way attributing the drivers of ENSO to human activities or CO2. Instead, I have stated persistently that to understand changes in temperature at climatic time scales, and hopefully predict climate and other ocean-climatic oscillatory patterns such as ENSO, PDO etc, we must first of all have a good grasp of the sun-ocean thermal lag, which is the dominant cause of what is now known as Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).

To return to the original question, I am of the opinion that the so-called 'leaked' IPCC report, and continuously attributing the temperature rise predominantly to CO2, is a deliberate attempt to notch-up the fear mongering, in order to predictively program the masses into accepting and even pleading for a corporate carbon tax and probably also push for other misplaced and unnecessary measures such as large scale geo-engineering.

Personally, I am advising states that still have the privileged of having right-thinking and independent-minded statesmen to put resources into studying the effects of such potential changes in temperature on their rainfall patterns and water resources in particular, and marine/terrestrial ecological responses in particular, and establish adaptation and early response measures to counteract any adverse impacts, as well as maximize on any positive impacts that might ensue from intensified warming over the coming two decades, as well as the effects of intense El Ninos (I have predicted the next El Nino event to occur by 2019/2020). My preliminary predictions also indicates that by mid 1940s, the climate system may switch to a cooling regime, and these are largely natural cyclical changes that require no human assistance. I am pointing this out because if this comes to pass, the powers that be may attribute it to their carbon tax and/or geo-engineering.

Cheer

Hi

Declan J. Mccabe, Kenneth M Towe , Aleš Kralj, Anthony B. Nd., Asit Kumar Batabyal....Thank you all for your inputs and deliberations.

I agree with view points of both Anthony as well as Ken based on the discussion here.

Dr. Ken says "That rate of increase appears during the following La-Nina, if the El-Nino is strong enough" meaning it is short term and cannot be contribute to global scales of CO2 warming!

Dr. Anthony says "there is a very strong coherence between El Nino and spikes in CO2 concentration and drivers of ENSO are not attributed to human activities or CO2 rather a good understanding of sun-ocean thermal lag is needed to predict ENSO, PDO etc." Also that continuously attributing the temperature rise predominantly to CO2, is a 'deliberate' attempt to notch-up the fear mongering and impose further taxes (Carbon)...!

From the graphs that Dr Ken has shared here, it appears that his theory is correct when he says that "The rate of increase during the warm phase (El-Nino) appears during the cold phase (La-Nina) for the major ENSOS" But Anthony also says that there are lot of publications to link his theory? Perhaps he can share some of those here.

Thanks.

Aleš Kralj,

To your comment "Actually, we will slowly need to start thinking how to abandon fossil power"

The draft says renewable energies, such as wind, solar and hydro power, would have to surge by 60 percent from 2020 levels by 2050 to stay below 1.5°C “while primary energy from coal decreases by two-thirds”.

By 2050, that meant renewables would supply between 49 and 67 percent of primary energy.

But you say that plans for renewables are for 'political popularity' so what's the alternative you suggest ? Nuclear is clean but has its own trade offs!

Dr. Anju Baroth,

Re: " But Anthony also says that there are lot of publications to link his theory? Perhaps he can share some of those here"

Feely et al. 1999. The influence of El Niño on the equatorial Pacific contribution to atmospheric CO2 accumulation. You can access the entire study here: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel1868/text.shtml

An excerpt:

" The equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of CO2 to the atmosphere, annually amounting to a net flux of 0.7–1.5 Pg (1015 g) of carbon, up to 72% of which emanates from the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Houghton et al., 1994; Tans et al., 1990; Takahashi et al., 1997). Limited observations indicate that the size of the equatorial Pacific source is significantly influenced by El Niño events (Feely et al., 1995; Wanninkhof et al., 1996; Murray et al., 1994; Feely et al., 1987; Inoue and Sugimura, 1992; Goyet and Peltzer, 1994; Archer et al., 1996)" The Feely et al. study actually concludes that annual out-gassing from the Pacific during El Nino are up to 30–80% of that observed during a non-El-Niño year.

More Links

A recent study by NASA scientists:

NASA reveals El Niño is to blame for record breaking jump in carbon dioxide levels (Daily Mail)

• The 2015-2016 El Niño led to the biggest one-year jump in carbon dioxide concentrations in 2,000 years
• El Niño is the natural warming of parts of the central Pacific that affects weather around the world
• El Niño-related heat and drought in tropical regions of South America, Africa and Indonesia were responsible
• El Niño made it more difficult for plants to suck up man-made carbon emissions and sparked fires that released more carbon into the atmosphere

According to the researchers, 'El Niño-related heat and drought occurring in tropical regions  of South America, Africa and Indonesia were responsible for the record spike in global carbon dioxide. These three tropical regions released 2.5 gigatons (a billion tons) more carbon into the atmosphere than they did in 2011'.

NASA (2017). NASA pinpoints cause of Earth's recent record carbon dioxide spike. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. October 12, URL: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2639/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earths-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike/

Access the news article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4975036/Another-El-Nino-problem-More-carbon-dioxide-air.html

Remember these are just drought and forest-fire-related emissions; thus emissions from oceanic outgassing have not been included.

El Nino Blamed for Record Carbon Dioxide Levels (https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2016/05/24/271040.htm)

'The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped by the biggest amount on record last month, a rise amplified by El Nino in 2016.

Carbon dioxide levels increased by 4.16ppm in April compared to a year earlier, according to readings at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Until this year, the biggest increase was 3.7 ppm. Records go back to 1950'.

The questions that scream for answers are as follows: Does anyone claim to know the background CO2 levels prior to accelerated human emissions? can anyone claim to know with certainty the actual amount of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere that derives from natural environments and processes? If these questions cannot be answered, there is actually no way of confirming that humans are the dominant drivers of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Therefore, I reiterate that we must be seriously investing on adaptation to predicted climatic changes rather than on reducing CO2 levels because this may just be the case of a wrongly diagnosed problem. Even the best scientists are not immune to errors especially when dealing with issues of such complexity.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue.

Cheers

Thanks Dr. Anthony for elaborate explanation and references. The references does point toward the theory you were proposing. I would be interested to know how long these effects last (in terms of impact on global warming) when we compare with human induced emissions.

I also invite Dr. Ken to share his views on your response.

Thanks Dr. Aleš

Another benefit with renewables is that it is re-newable and would not exhaust. So perhaps investing billions in renewables also has another angle, which is non-reliance on crude oil and saving huge money by not importing the oil from gulf and saving revenues! So renewables are not bad option from that perspective when it comes with an additional benefit of lowering emissions plus saving dollors and euros!

The elaborate presentations of Dr.Anthony, Kenneth and Aleš have enriched the discussion. Highly appreciable! RG colleagues will be benefited. Thanks and regards

Thanks Dr. Ales and Dr. Ken for sharing your opinion about the renewables!

I am very curious to get the reply for my original question as well which was "As per the report human-induced warming will exceed 1.5oC by around 2040"

What are the implications and how true these implications would be?

Thanks

Thanks Dr. Ales and Dr. Ken.

Its the irony and beauty of the research world that we find opinions, evidence, supporters and opponents for the same as well as conflicting theories. The question is whom and what to believe!

Dear Anju,

I have been saying that no one knows what is going on about climate right now. It is all based in possibilities. But global warming due to fossil fuel burning is surely a hoax. A fraud. Or a huge and strong "scientific" mistake.

This is a very multidisciplinary subject and NO ONE is able, or capable, of making any prediction for a short or long period in future. The ones who affirm they can are actually liars or stupid. What we have right now is no more than "I believe".

Anthony is right. Kenneth is right. Ales is right. Only IPCC predictions are wrong. Kenneth thinks CO2 is really causing a global heating and that is too late to do something. Anthony doesn't agree. He thinks it is something related to the oceans getting warm due to solar activity. In fact, some astronomers say so. Ales is trying to point out that everything is unclear and I agree with him. Besides it all, geological data show clearly that CO2 is an effect of a global heating and not its cause. Just have a look at any plots on paleotemperature x CO2 concentration in geological records.

IPCC is nothing but policy. That's it. Economy and policy. Money for research and researches maybe. That's all.

When I make a simple comparison with all that has been produced and what it would increase atmospheric CO2 concentration I verify that IPCC numbers cannot be right. Also 13C/12C ratio is clearly not in accordance with 13C/12C ration in oil, coal and natural gas. Biofuel, as Kenneth points, does not help or change in anything. If the atmospheric CO2 amounts is men-made as they say, it is too late. If it is natural, it is too late as well. Therefore, Kenneth is right. We can do nothing. we'd better get prepared and that's all we can do.

On the other hand, a bit warmer planet means more ice melting, more water evaporation, faster and bigger autotrophic growth (plants, algae, bacteria) and, consequently, global biomass increase. How much CO2 will be involved? No one knows. More humid atmosphere means more carbonic acid being formed in the air what means more carbonates precipitation all around the lands and shallow seas.

Believe me. No one can answer your question. Not yet. Not in a short future.

Kenneth,

I already knew your answer. But now, I think we need hope.

What do you suggest us to do right now? Sit and cry? Move to Mars? What can Human beings do for their future?

Amazing discussion! It's good to see that there are people discussing CO2 participation in the climate without alarmism or shaming fossil emission. Thanks a lot. It's awesome follow this debate.

In my opinion, this is the point: IPCC claim CO2 emission by fossil fiel burned is the guilty. But excluded astronomers studies wich point solar activities as partial responsable.

It's so nebulous and while we are worried about CO2, other investments to help humanity are not done. I agree you all, Anthony, Ales, Kenneth and Jorge. We need investigate seriously, because CO2 could not be the main point in this climate discussion

Dear Jorge and Gilberto,

Thanks for participating in the discussion and sharing your views. I can clearly see the difference in views of geologists, astronomers and other scientists (IPCC supporters). And I would repeat my last question " The question is whom and what to believe!

Dear Anju,

"The question is whom and what to believe! " is the right question. Ales gave an nice direction to follow.

I say the same. You are a scientist. We don't "believe". We check facts. If we think it is right we "agree". If it does not convince us we refuse. Doesn't matter what the international community will say. They must say nothing. They must "prove" we are wrong.

That's my way of thinking.

Pay attention to what Kenneth is saying in his last answer. I do not believe on him. But I must agree with him. That's it.

Dr. Anju,

As Jorge rightly points out, it is not an issue of faith but of scientific inquiry and common sense. If possible, read as much of IPCC reports as possible, as well as study the natural complexity of the ocean-climate system going as far back as possible, keeping in mind the fundamentals of the scientific method, and draw your own conclusions. On this question of climate change, it is very easy to fall into the dangerous trap of 'group think'. We should not be deceived by the narrative that a group of people called 'climate scientists' have the whole truth. In-fact, climate science is so complex that to hope to get close to the truth, climate research must include the following specialists: physicists, chemists, biologists, astrophysicists, oceanographers, paleoclimatologists, environmental historians, meteorologists, geologists, glaciologists, hydrologists, biochemists, pedologists, statisticians, mathematicians, and others I can't think of right now. These specialists individually hold only a little piece of the puzzle and to succeed in understanding our climate, we must all put these pieces together.

Regards

The question is whom and what to believe!

There is no scope of ‘belief’ or ‘disbelief’ in science. ‘Majority agreement’ is also not the base of science. It is based on the observation, identification, description, and experimental investigations. Climate science is highly complicated and interdisciplinary. Various processes like biotic processes, natural variations (such as variations in solar radiations, plate movements, volcanic eruptions etc.) and some human activities have impacts on the climate. A multidisciplinary project is needed to study the climate; researchers from various disciplines, as mentioned by Dr.Anthony are required for a complete study and to come out with the truths of climate change.

Regards

Interesting query and discussion as well.

Anju,

You are the "Chair-Woman" here. So, tell us, what's next?

we did not find any latest report of IPCC,

Dear Fellows On This Discussion Thread,

Thank you for giving your diverse yet converging views on my question “whom and what to believe”

Most of you have pointed that its not a matter of belief and disbelief, it is about checking facts, making scientific inquiries and using common sense. Also since it is science so observations, scientific investigations are also must.

Well I agree with you all and respect each of your views and comments. In fact I know that as a scientist I must and I will do all the above before making my own opinion.

However, we all know that the current world population is 7.6 billion and reports from International Panels like IPCC are reported by media all around the world and so are the debates and opinions similar to our discussion on RG. These 7.6 million people (excluding few 1000 scientists) will “believe” what the IPCC report says and what media reports. They do not have the means, interest and opportunity to check facts, make scientific queries, use common sense, make observations, identifications and scientific investigations.

My question “Whom and what to believe” was from a ‘common man' perspective who would read differing opinions and debates on climate change and would be confused/shocked!!

If everyone here believes strongly that the findings of IPCC report are misleading and is only a hoax, then what should we as scientific community do so that a common man can know the truth and live in peace without such shocks?

You are the "Chair-Woman" here. So, tell us, what's next?

@ Jorge .......Ha ha ...I didn't know that ....: :-)

The discussion is going in the right direction with so many well read people joining and sharing their insights.

I would be happy to get the responses to my last post in this thread.

" You wanna get high as the sky You're kissin' your life goodbye You think it's a game that you play But the winners lose it all someday. "

" what should we as scientific community do so that a common man can know the truth and live in peace without such shocks? "

Currently no one publishes "peer reviewed" articles saying something else than Global Climate change is due to humans. Anthony B. Nd, has already faced the strong power of the "enemy".

TV shows only tragedies. Newspapers don't say in the front page that "yesterday it was calm everywhere and people had a nice time".

So, we already doing what we can. We discuss here. We discuss with others. Why time goes on new facts are brought to light and reality will show up. It is just a question of time, nothing else.

Population has already extrapolated planet's conditions. We must reduce population, no doubt.

Nuclear power is being presented as the climate savior. Maybe it is the savior. But savior of what? And if it saves, in time it will itself become a world problem, so, we don't need a savior, we need actually a rescuer.

Anju, I told this somewhere else. I think by now we can only wait and accumulate data and knowledge.

Kenneth,

We all are moving the same everywhere. Population is too big and increasing faster than expected in some countries. Brazil more than double its population since 1970. We were 90 and now we are around 200 million. And people are moving to urban centers. Big cities are going bigger an bigger. More energy is obviously required. Petroleum is no longer being found in necessary quantities. It's about to end with the fuel fossils burning era. Bio-fuel cannot be produced in the amounts and in the necessary velocity. Fusion is not yet ready for use. Wind energy is not possible everywhere. Together with solar, tidal and geothermic energies, maybe. Nuclear power is very expensive and not all countries have money and technology. That's all clear.

That's my point. Instead of wasting money in keeping frightening people about a CO2 we cannot fight against we should have invested in superconductors, transmission of electricity and so on.

Ok, Kenneth,

Let's now see what does our chairwoman has to say about this subject.

I myself am already doing may part for the planet, Married 3 times and have no children. :)))))

Dr. Ken,

Can you please list the adaptations that you propose?

I am curious to know these specific adaptations proposed by Kenneth.

I am agreeing with professors ales and Ken discussions on continuing emissions..!!

The evidence supporting the amazing rate of environmental damage and drastic climate change is a reality we cannot ignore. Phenomena like erupting volcanoes, unprecedented droughts, frequent sand storms, melting gigantic ice blocks and intolerably rising temperatures are all signs heralding the imminent ecological catastrophes predicted by concerned scientists . Notably, all living things , the residents of the world,enter into relationships with its constituents through active engagement. It is quite logical in this being with process to adopt a win-win stance whereby by respecting and valuing the pace of nature, we can ensure our own happiness and well being and monitor the ecological crisis we are facing today. Therefore, our main responsibility is to do our best to respect and preserve the whole of nature in its beauty.