Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[fryewe]

America isn’t getting the credit it deserves for greening its economy without donning the eco-hairshirt: No other developed country is making more progress in moving away from coal than we are. We’ve said it before but it bears repeating (even if it does fall on deaf ears amongst environmentalists): Shale gas is fracking green.

Fracking Is Making America Greener - The American Interest

[SV THIRD DAY]

But if Fracking is making America Green...they why to the EcoStatists want to shut it down?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

But if Fracking is making America Green...they why to the EcoStatists want to shut it down?

They aren't getting a piece of that pie.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by newhaul

They aren't getting a piece of that pie.

Ding Ding ding....give that man a Cigar!

The MMGW Cult isn't about making a better environment it's about money and Power. If you think Big Oil, Big Banks and Big Pharma are bad...ha ha ha...they don't hold a CO2 producing candle to the evils and agenda of Big Green!

Another question:
If CO2 was really going to destroy the earth for humanity...why is Big Green against Nuclear Power? Ah...well....because that solves the CO2 problem, again without Big Green getting a piece of the money Pie.


Money laundering 101.
Solyndra Offered $535 Million Loan Guarantee by the U.S. Department of Energy". News and Information, 2009.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

On this we fully agree .



Just north of Tuscon ... and yes, it is freezing. Overnight temps are dropping to near-0C (32F). Still freezin' my @ss off down here in these southern states. What ever happen to global warming... Oh, wait, I'm one of the science nerds here. Damn...

There's HOPE for you yet !

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

They aren't getting a piece of that pie.

I think you need to up your dose of greenie pills Newhaul .

I know we've been over this turf many, many, many... times on this thread. But it takes a phenomenal level of self-delusion to believe the that theory of rapid climate change is some sort of a global conspiracy of "greenies."

All the planet's geophysical research organizations, all the major journals, the vast vast majority (whatever number you want to accept) of climate scientists, almost all national governments, almost all international trans-global organizations, the insurance industry, the world's militaries and security agencies, and now a growing number of corporations (outside of the fossil fuel industry) ... all these people accepts rapid climate change is happening AND that human civilization is a significant driver of this. Exactly how significant, from dominate to minor, is still under investigation, but significance is not.

Following the money is bang on when looking for an explanation of this faux debate. The money chain runs easily and directly to those who benefit from the status quo: the fossil fuel industry, and those connected to them.

I know there's no point talking to people like Third, but to people like newhaul, Exile, senormechanico, SailorChick, I ask you; what kind of evidence would you accept as valid or credible? What would it take for you to accept the scientific consensus?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

All the planet's geophysical research organizations, all the major journals, the vast vast majority (whatever number you want to accept) of climate scientists, almost all national governments, almost all international trans-global organizations, the insurance industry, the world's militaries and security agencies, and now a growing number of corporations (outside of the fossil fuel industry) ... all these people accepts rapid climate change is happening AND that human civilization is a significant driver of this. Exactly how significant, from dominate to minor, is still under investigation, but significance is not.

That just shows that how extensive this massive conspiracy is. The whole world is involved.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I ask you; what kind of evidence would you accept as valid or credible? What would it take for you to accept the scientific consensus?

Oh that's easy.
As a Scientist myself that has actually measured CO2 from power plants an presented papers on pollution control at environmental conferences, you look to prove a Theory using the Scientific Method. For those that went to public schools, lets review:
You make a prediction and then test it. If your Theory is accurate and can make measurable and repeatable predictions about the natural world...it is proven.

To date, none of the computer models telling us that Global Warming is happening and going to kill us all, has accurately predicted the future. Therefore, the models do not work.

Next Question Please.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You make a prediction and then test it. If your Theory is accurate and can make measurable and repeatable predictions about the natural world...it is proven.

Well if that is all it takes - voila!

Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The poleward movement of storm tracks.

The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

References

Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools
Manabe and Wetherald 1967
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006
De F. Forster et al. 1999
Langematz et al. 2003
Vinnikov and Grody 2003
** et al. 2004
Thompson and Solomon 2005

Nights warm more than days
Arrhenius 1896
Dai et al. 1999
Sherwood et al. 2005

Winter warms more than summer
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Rind et al. 1989
Balling et al. 1999
Volodin and Galin 1999
Crozier 2003

Polar amplification
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Polyakov et al. 2001
Holland and Bitz 2003

Arctic warms more than Antarctic
Arrhenius 1896
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
Doran et al. 2002
Comisa 2003
Turner et al. 2007

Pinatubo effects
Hansen et al. 1992
Hansen et al. 1996
Soden et al. 2002

Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures
Rind and Peteet 1985
Farreral et al. 1999
Melanda et al. 2005

Temperature trend versus UAH results
Christy et al. 2003
Santer et al. 2003
Mears and Wentz 2005
Santer et al. 2005
Sherwood et al. 2005

Water vapor feedback from ENSO
Lau et al. 1996
Soden 2000
Dessler and Wong 2009

Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds
Fyfe et al. 1999
Kushner et al. 2001
Sexton 2001
Thompson and Solomon 2002

Hadley Cells expand
Quan et al. 2002
** et al. 2006
Hu and ** 2007

Storm tracks move poleward
Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003
Yin 2005

Tropopause and radiating altitude rise
Thuburn and Craig 1997
Kushner et al. 2001
Santer et al. 2003
Seidel and Randel 2006

Tropical "super greenhouse effect"
Vonder Haar 1986
Lubin 1994

Constant average relative humidity
Manabe and Wetherall 1967
Minschwaner and Dessler 2004
Soden et al. 2005
Gettelman and ** 2008

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The hockey stick has been replicated scores of times.

Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)'s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

Bertrand et al. 2002: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.

Esper et al. 2002: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.

Cronin et al. 2003: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.

Pollack and Smerdon 2004: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.

Esper et al. 2005: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.

Moberg et al. 2005: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.

Oerlemans 2005: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.

Rutherford, et al. 2005: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.

D'Arrigo et al. 2006: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.

Osborn and Briffa 2006: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.

Hegerl et al. 2007: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.

Juckes et al. 2007: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

Wahl and Ammann 2007: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.

Wilson, et al. 2007: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.

Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

Kaufman, et al. 2009: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.

von Storch et al. 2009: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.

Frank et al. 2010: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.

Kellerhals et al. 2010: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.

Ljungqvist 2010: Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.

Thibodeau et al. 2010: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.

Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b: Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.

Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.

Kemp et al. 2011: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

Kinnard et al. 2011: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.

Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.

Spielhagen et al. 2011: Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.

Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.

Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.

Melvin et al. 2012: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.

Abram et al. 2013: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.

Marcott, et al. 2013: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.

PAGES 2k Consortium 2013: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.

Rhodes et al. 2013: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I think you need to up your dose of greenie pills Newhaul .

I know we've been over this turf many, many, many... times on this thread. But it takes a phenomenal level of self-delusion to believe the that theory of rapid climate change is some sort of a global conspiracy of "greenies."

All the planet's geophysical research organizations, all the major journals, the vast vast majority (whatever number you want to accept) of climate scientists, almost all national governments, almost all international trans-global organizations, the insurance industry, the world's militaries and security agencies, and now a growing number of corporations (outside of the fossil fuel industry) ... all these people accepts rapid climate change is happening AND that human civilization is a significant driver of this. Exactly how significant, from dominate to minor, is still under investigation, but significance is not.

Following the money is bang on when looking for an explanation of this faux debate. The money chain runs easily and directly to those who benefit from the status quo: the fossil fuel industry, and those connected to them.

I know there's no point talking to people like Third, but to people like newhaul, Exile, senormechanico, SailorChick, I ask you; what kind of evidence would you accept as valid or credible? What would it take for you to accept the scientific consensus?

Mike I am infact as you say a lost cause I have a minimal carbon footprint already and its not to help the environment it is to keep more of my pintance of a disability check in my pocket. For me to accept some kind of consensus either way I would have to actually see a real world difference and so far I fail to see any actual evidence" the smoking gun" that mmgw is real. Heck it has been getting progressively colder each winter on the average in my region. ( someone will come on and say its due to el Nino or some other fancy name that is given to a natural weather occurance to grab headlines and make a rally point) .

[newhaul]

As far as all the data jack posts I keep seeing a theme emerge " after adjustment" for whatever reason .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Heck it has been getting progressively colder each winter on the average in my region.

Are you sure about that?

OWSC: N.W. Temperature, Precipitation, & SWE Trend Analysis

For January, the only place getting cooler is Port Townsend.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As far as all the data jack posts I keep seeing a theme emerge " after adjustment" for whatever reason .

All temperature data sets are adjusted.

Judith Curry and Steve Mosher, both well-known skeptics, have commented on this. Curry asked Zeke Hausfather to post some commentary on her blog.

Judith Curry, a skeptic and one of Inhofe's favorites, has published three discussions of temperature adjustments.

"There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”."



Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data | Climate Etc.

Understanding Time of Observation Bias | Climate Etc.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To which I would add a comment from Steve Mosher, the skeptic who published the Climategate letters.

Christopher Booker win’s the irony of the year award with his piece on adjustments to the temperature record. That’s quite a feat considering it’s only February. His complaint overlooks the clear historical fact that skeptics, above all others, have made the loudest case for the need to adjust the temperature series. Over the years, it’s been skeptics, who have made a vocal case for adjustments . More disturbing is the claim that these adjustments are somehow criminal. We dealt with these type of claims before and completely debunked them.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Are you sure about that?

OWSC: N.W. Temperature, Precipitation, & SWE Trend Analysis

For January, the only place getting cooler is Port Townsend.

Funny part to me is that the official government data doesn't match the raw data from the thermometers in my fiancée's back yard. And before you ask there are 3 different ones bimetal, mercury, and electronic. Just to be sure we have accurate info. (Her father was a boeing engineer and ammature meterologist.) Right now it is 35.1° f and raining ( second day above freezing this year.)

[senormechanico]

It's almost 40 f here on Whidbey Island. Maybe I should "adjust" my findings.