Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The three quotes I gave you were all within the ranges of both AR4 and AR5.

I have yet to find AR5 projections out through the end of the century. Were they higher, lower, or about the same as AR4? In other words, what's your point in raising AR5? Attacking the messenger again? I suspect you will now go silent or change the subject . . . . again.

But as fryewe just pointed out, your three quotes from alarmist newspaper articles citing predictions for Britain, New York, and Winnipeg are not remotely representative of the mainstream "official" worldwide projections from the IPCC. Yet this is the same IPCC which you claim represents your 1/99 consensus "rout."

Why do you continue to believe that these sorts of tactics are credible or persuasive? Are you used to a more gullible audience?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.

The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.

Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.

“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”

Fine. I hope they bring it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

No, they're not...not even close...

Fearmongering. Beneath you, Jack.

Attachment 127115

The question was about the 2080. That is what he got.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2155074

BTW you may wish to read the source of one of your graphs, neither of which are from AR4 or AR5

Near-term global surface temperature projections in IPCC AR5 | Climate Lab Book

[Lake-Effect]

Here's a detailed article on the intricacies of temperature data acquisition and processing. Probably a tad long for the Daily Caller readership.

A taste...

You can also use some sorcery to try to produce a satellite measurement more representative of the lower half of the troposphere—a technique pioneered by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) group that runs the other major satellite dataset. The instrument on the satellites turns side-to-side as it scans the Earth, but only the measurements facing straight downward are normally used. By combining those measurements with angled measurements pointed at the same spot during earlier or later passes, this technique extrapolates temperature downward a bit. (The UAH group is, however, about to switch to a new technique.)


“That particular calculation adds additional uncertainty—partly because you’re subtracting two large numbers to get a smaller number, which always leads to uncertainty, and you’re never measuring exactly the same place on the Earth at the same time,” Mears said. “It’s not an ideal situation.”

Maybe people should reserve some skepticism for the skeptics

[Exile]

Found it, albeit in the "Summary for Policymakers." Still didn't find a graph but probably just missed it.

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8}"

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...rochure_en.pdf

Like I thought, in & around 2 degs. by the end of the century. More specifics available via the link. But wait! That's less than what AR4 predicted. It's getting harder & harder to take these sorts of shenanigans seriously.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here's a detailed article on the intricacies of temperature data acquisition and processing. Probably a tad long for the Daily Caller readership.

A taste...

You can also use some sorcery to try to produce a satellite measurement more representative of the lower half of the troposphere—a technique pioneered by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) group that runs the other major satellite dataset. The instrument on the satellites turns side-to-side as it scans the Earth, but only the measurements facing straight downward are normally used. By combining those measurements with angled measurements pointed at the same spot during earlier or later passes, this technique extrapolates temperature downward a bit. (The UAH group is, however, about to switch to a new technique.)


“That particular calculation adds additional uncertainty—partly because you’re subtracting two large numbers to get a smaller number, which always leads to uncertainty, and you’re never measuring exactly the same place on the Earth at the same time,” Mears said. “It’s not an ideal situation.”

Maybe people should reserve some skepticism for the skeptics

An excellent idea! Just be sure there's enough skepticism left for both sides.

I think the necessity for adjustments to all types of data generally is pretty well-settled. It was the adjustments to the surface data specifically which raised eyebrows since the pre-adjusted data showed a much lower rate of warming that was more consistent with the sat data. I guess the controversy continues but that's one for the scientists to ultimately sort out.

Good to hear the UAH data continues to be scrutinized, refined, improved upon, and adjusted as is customary & necessary.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

...But wait! That's less than what AR4 predicted. It's getting harder & harder to take these sorts of shenanigans seriously.

Yep.

And Jack knows that.

So why did he signal (without saying) that your argument that the published projections were inconsistent with his posts was invalid because you posted AR4 projections, when, in fact, they are even more inconsistent with AR5 projections?

Maybe when you've lost as much credibility as the usual warmist crowd on CF, another embarrassment doesn't matter.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
Wrong. They're not "proposing to investigate" anything, but rather prosecuting Exxon/Mobil for, yes, funding scientists who are skeptics, or more accurately for challenging the scientific status quo.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's not what the Dem declaration says. Links for your assertions?


In relevant part, the Democratic Party draft platform:

Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.

https://demconvention.com/news/democ...ing-concludes/

So you're suggesting the U.S. Dept. of Justice merely "investigates" allegations of corporate fraud without it having a chilling effect on the free speech of the targets of such an "investigation?" And do you also believe that the nation's chief law enforcement agency does so without building a case for eventual prosecution?

How about when the nation's chief law enforcement officer publicly announces that she is referring the case to the FBI?

AG Lynch: DOJ Has Discussed Whether to Pursue Civil Action Against Climate Change Deniers

And what exactly do you think 17 state AG's (16 Dems; 1 indpt.) were doing on March 29 standing before the media (with Al Gore) when they announced their joint "investigation" -- in consultation with pro-AGW groups, of course -- into pursuing fraud and even racketeering claims against fossil fuel cos.?

Democratic AGs, climate change groups colluded on prosecuting dissenters, emails show - Washington Times

Quote:
And they are also prosecuting conservative think tanks for the very same reason, except last I checked such nonprofits don't have shareholders.

Haven't heard that either. Link?


So what would you call the Competitive Enterprise Institute getting served with the following subpoena? Weren't you the same guy protesting so vigorously against such tactics by a state AG against Michael Mann?? But that's different right??

"The subpoena requests a decade's worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI's work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information," the institute said. "It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016."

Think Tank With Fossil-Fuel Ties Subpoenaed in AG's Climate Inquiry | InsideClimate News

After harsh criticism, the subpoena was later revoked but the federal and multi-state "investigations" continue on. But even Jack acknowledges that climate science is unsettled, that the lynchpin of the entire theory -- namely the link btwn. CO2 and warming -- has not reached the level of scientific fact, and there are scores of accomplished and highly credentialed scientists who vigorously dispute the role of human vs. natural forces on warming. So how is it again that somehow scientists working for the oil cos. knew how dangerous CC was decades ago and purposely withheld it from the public?? You know, "just like the public being misled by the tobacco cos. about the link btwn. smoking and cancer/heart disease."

PLEASE!! This is a blatantly political, unconstitutional attempt to stifle dissent, and everyone who values free speech in a democratic society should object to these sorts of dangerous shenanigans. Or would you like your next conservative govt. to employ the same tactics to issues that you deem important?

Quote:
The Daily Caller is just the online version of the "2 Minute Hate" for lazy right-wingers.

If you cannot suppress dissent, then calling those with a different point of view "haters" (to name one of many) is the next best thing.

No, I'm calling out a crap source.

A "crap source" with "over 35 million views a month according to Quantcast, surpassing rival sites such as The Washington Times, Politico, and Forbes. The site has an active community, with over 200,000 comments made each month."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

But who cares about its millions of readers when you believe it's a "crap source" for "lazy right-wingers." Or do you just not feel "safe" having such opposing points of view out there? Perhaps another govt. "investigation" is in order?? I'm sure it'll pass constitutional scrutiny if no formal prosecution is announced.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Yep.

And Jack knows that.

And an awful lot more, which is exactly why it's troubling.

So why did he signal (without saying) that your argument that the published projections were inconsistent with his posts was invalid because you posted AR4 projections, when, in fact, they are even more inconsistent with AR5 projections?

An attempt to intimidate, condescend, browbeat perhaps posters who (admittedly) aren't as studied up on the science as he is. Only serves to reveal weakness on the merits of any argument.

Maybe when you've lost as much credibility as the usual warmist crowd on CF, another embarrassment doesn't matter.

Maybe so, and I suspect he'll be back in a few pages or sooner with the same old points verbatim out of the archives, but never addressing the many questions or challenges. Quite odd, since one can plausibly argue that the weight of the evidence supports his position. But then maybe absolutism requires a like response, and nothing short of that will do.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Wrong. They're not "proposing to investigate" anything, but rather prosecuting Exxon/Mobil for, yes, funding scientists who are skeptics, or more accurately for challenging the scientific status quo.[...]

As I understand it, the E-M scientists were not climate change skeptics. Rather, the E-M scientists, as well as non-E-M scientists, were warning that a product sold by E-M (oil) might prove in the future to be a hazardous to public well-being (CO2 causing greenhouse warming). Publicly held companies are required by law to disclose to their shareholders liabilities which the company may be incurring. The E-M executives failed to disclose to shareholders the liabilities that their own scientists were warning about.

New York is investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change | Washington Post

[...] The investigation focuses on whether Exxon Mobil intentionally clouded public debate about science and hid from investors the risks that climate change could pose to its business according to a person familiar with the matter.

Schneiderman has broad leeway to take on such a sweeping target under both consumer protection laws and New York’s Martin Act, a securities law that protects investors.[...]

Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, is also conducting a similar investigation regarding Peabody Energy, a leading coal company. The person familiar with the matter suggested that other energy companies could also face scrutiny.[...]

[SailOar]

Carbon pricing—a no-brainer for climate change? | PHYS.ORG

A recent report from the University of Cambridge Judge Business School found that the cost of fossil fuel companies' emissions for society was greater than their after-tax profits. In other words, if these companies were fully accountable for the impacts of their carbon emissions, they would not be profitable at all. Putting a price on carbon would make burning fossil fuels more expensive and drive producers and consumers to find ways to shift to clean energy. It would enable the economy to reflect the true cost of doing business.

At a conference last fall, Michael Gerrard, the Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice at Columbia Law School and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said, "A price on carbon would reverberate through every part of the economy and fundamentally alter patterns of both production and consumption…we would see a massive shift in our patterns of energy use. We would also see a rush of technological innovation."[...]

There are two main types of carbon pricing: a carbon tax and cap and trade. Some hybrid approaches combine aspects of each.

A carbon tax sets a price that must be paid per ton of carbon dioxide generated by every emitter or those from certain sectors. They are required to pay a tax based on the per-ton fee multiplied by their total emissions; if they cut their emissions, they lower their tax. Over time, the carbon tax can be raised to encourage a continued decline in emissions.

The tax is usually imposed at the point where the fossil fuel is extracted from the earth and enters the market or is imported into the country, with the cost passed along down the line eventually to the consumer. A carbon tax can be applied locally, nationally or by the European Union, but not globally since there is no global governing body to enforce it.

Fifteen countries or jurisdictions currently implement a carbon tax, including British Columbia, Chile, Costa Rica, Iceland, Japan and Mexico. Several EU countries also tax carbon for emissions not covered by the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

In cap and trade, a market-based scheme, the government sets a cap (a limit) on emissions, and then issues enough permits or allowances to match the cap, each for the right to emit one ton of CO2. The cap can cover all sources of emissions or can be limited to, say, electric power generation. The permits are either given out initially for free to emitters or sold to them at auction. Permits can then be traded so that a company that quickly lowers its emissions has an excess of permits that it can sell for profit, and a company that cannot lower its emissions sufficiently can buy permits from others. If emitters do not have enough permits to cover their emissions, they are penalized. Because of supply and demand, the market automatically adjusts the price of the permits, but the available number of permits remains the same regardless of trading so that the cap is met.

The cap can be ratcheted down each year to ensure that emissions continue to decline. Countries can also link their markets and accept permits from one another. Around the world, there are 17 cap and trade programs.

Hybrid systems might set limits on the prices for cap and trade to keep them from going too high or low; adjust a carbon tax to make sure that specific emission cuts are met; or employ cap and trade for some sectors and a carbon tax for others.[...]

[transmitterdan]

The Peabody case as well as the "investigation" of E/M and other oil companies is very disturbing. The Peabody law judge turned the law on its ear by demanding that Peabody prove it was innocent. The judge had to really twist and turn to get to that point (said Peabody triggered the means) and any real court in the US would be hard pressed to do the same (at least one hopes).

The US Democrat Party platform plank requiring investigation/prosecution of companies should be very disturbing to all reasonable people. Even if you agree fully that MMGW is 100% true, twisting the law like this inevitably leads to disintegration of a civil society. If they can do it for MMGW then they can do it for a host of other "wrongs" as well.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

Found it, albeit in the "Summary for Policymakers." Still didn't find a graph but probably just missed it.

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8}"

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...rochure_en.pdf

Like I thought, in & around 2 degs. by the end of the century. More specifics available via the link. But wait! That's less than what AR4 predicted. It's getting harder & harder to take these sorts of shenanigans seriously.

This may seem a facetious question but it truly isn't meant to be, it was suggested while trying to word this post.

While we who accept the science describing AGW (fuzzy as it [by its' very nature] is) have what I'd call a clear agenda of limiting greenhouse gases while preserving the quality of life for everyone, do the deniers (I've still not gotten a response for what they'd like to be called, a skeptic is one who has falsifiable reasons for his skepticism, denier just seems to more accurately describe the phenomenon of 'it's a huge conspiracy'. Maybe 'unbeliever'?) have a clear agenda? If you do, could you describe it for us?

Anyway, the snippet you chose from the 'Summary for Policymakers 2013'
by the (much maligned) IPCC, clearly illustrates the perils and pitfalls of, dare I say, cherry-picking a single statement from a summary of an extremely complex subject about an extremely complicated process to support a preconceived notion.

The information conveyed in the excerpt above is referring to ranges predicted in possible scenarios in (those useless) models of climate at different concentrations of greenhouse gases (among other things). At no point in the excerpt do I read that the warming predicted in the models is going to be 'in & around 2 degs. by the end of the century'. Indeed, the wording is clear; the IPCC is showing the likelihood of temperatures under different scenarios, and in three out of four of those scenarios, chances are that the temperature will exceed 2 C over baseline. In one scenario, the temp is likely only to exceed 1.5 C.

In the first picture shown below, the actual mean and ranges for different scenarios and time periods are shown. The range is from .3 to 4.8, depending on the scenario and the time frame. Something to keep in mind here is that these temperatures are global averages, the local temperature variation will be much greater.

The second and third pictures show the differences is observed readings and regional models over time, with either only natural forcing or with combined anthropogenic and natural forcings. It is clear, if one accepts the scientific data, that the effect of humans on the climate is real.

It is interesting to note how well the observed data fit into the anthropogenic/natural forcing zones.


From the summary, a description of what these 'scenarios' are:


Box SPM.1: Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)

Climate change projections in IPCC Working Group I require information about future emissions or concentrations of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other climate drivers. This information is often expressed as a scenario of human activities, which are not assessed in this report. Scenarios used in Working Group I have focused on anthropogenic emissions and do not include changes in natural drivers such as solar or volcanic forcing or natural emissions, for example, of CH4 and N2O.

For the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC, the scientific community has defined a set of four new scenarios, denoted Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs, see Glossary). They are identified by their approximate total radiative forcing in year 2100 relative to 1750: 2.6 W m-2 for RCP2.6, 4.5 W m-2 for RCP4.5, 6.0 W m-2 for RCP6.0, and 8.5 W m-2 for RCP8.5. For the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) results, these values should be understood as indicative only, as the climate forcing resulting from all drivers varies between models due to specific model characteristics and treatment of short-lived climate forcers. These four RCPs include one mitigation scenario leading to a very low forcing level (RCP2.6), two stabilization scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP6), and one scenario with very high greenhouse gas emissions (RCP8.5). The RCPs can thus represent a range of 21st century climate policies, as compared with the no-climate policy of the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) used in the Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report. For RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, radiative forcing does not peak by year 2100; for RCP2.6 it peaks and declines; and for RCP4.5 it stabilizes by 2100. Each RCP provides spatially resolved data sets of land use change and sector-based emissions of air pollutants, and it specifies annual greenhouse gas concentrations and anthropogenic emissions up to 2100. RCPs are based on a combination of integrated assessment models, simple climate models, atmospheric chemistry and global carbon cycle models. While the RCPs span a wide range of total forcing values, they do not cover the full range of emissions in the literature, particularly for aerosols.

Most of the CMIP5 and Earth System Model simulations were performed with prescribed CO2 concentrations reaching 421 ppm (RCP2.6), 538 ppm (RCP4.5), 670 ppm (RCP6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by the year 2100. Including also the prescribed concentrations of CH4 and N2O, the combined CO2-equivalent concentrations are 475 ppm (RCP2.6), 630 ppm (RCP4.5), 800 ppm (RCP6.0), and 1313 ppm (RCP8.5). For RCP8.5, additional CMIP5 Earth System Model simulations are performed with prescribed CO2 emissions as provided by the integrated assessment models. For all RCPs, additional calculations were made with updated atmospheric chemistry data and models (including the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate component of CMIP5) using the RCP prescribed emissions of the chemically reactive gases (CH4, N2O, HFCs, NOx, CO, NMVOC). These simulations enable investigation of uncertainties related to carbon cycle feedbacks and atmospheric chemistry.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The Peabody case as well as the "investigation" of E/M and other oil companies is very disturbing. The Peabody law judge turned the law on its ear by demanding that Peabody prove it was innocent. The judge had to really twist and turn to get to that point (said Peabody triggered the means) and any real court in the US would be hard pressed to do the same (at least one hopes).

As Exile has pointed out, the Peabody was not a criminal case. As such the burden of proof is different.

[weavis]

Please note this is a controversial subject and it is not nice to make it personal.