Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SailOar]

April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs | The Guardian

April 2016 was the hottest April on record globally – and the seventh month in a row to have broken global temperature records.

The latest figures smashed the previous record for April by the largest margin ever recorded.

It makes three months in a row that the monthly record has been broken by the largest margin ever, and seven months in a row that are at least 1C above the 1951-80 mean for that month. When the string of record-smashing months started in February, scientists began talking about a “climate emergency”...

It all but assures that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, and probably by the largest margin ever...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But no matter, because 95% is unachievable and so realistically you're estimating at least 1,000 years. I wouldn't know but apparently you feel like you do. Fine, but if you are correct then I cannot think of a stronger argument for getting on with adaptation.

Have a look for yourself. You should already know this, if you think you have enough of the picture to doubt the current science. Carbon put into the system is there til something takes it back out. The natural sinks don't take it out permanently, the extra carbon is now part of the cycle and will be released again - algae and plants die and rot, wood rots and burns, etc. Nothing in the natural cycle is taking significant amounts of carbon out of circulation and sequestering it again.

Tell me exactly what is inconsistent with recognizing the value of lower emissions, while at the same time acknowledging the obvious reality that, should the mainstream science be proven correct, our most rational course of action is adaptation?

That speech of yours has been repeated so many times I think you're now cutting and pasting from yourself. You claim to be skeptic with a genuine interest and concern, yet you spend most of your fireside chat telling us there's not much to be done. "Welp, all we can do is adapt."

Bull. You decided that you won't support any attempt at mitigation because gummint! or similar, and instead of a full frontal attack on the science, you've switched to "there's nothing we can do". Not many are fooled by it.

Or do you merely segregate your bottles, cans and newspapers into separate green bins, drive a reasonably fuel-efficient car, ride your bicycle around, and continuously "signal" your "virtue" on a sailing thread to make yourself feel OK about your "contribution?"

Ahahahaha. It's not me blowing a trumpet about putting government subsidized solar panels on a commercial building and writing it off. I've never made it about me, it's about the problem.

Ask yourself why so many have chosen CF to do their AGW ignorance signalling. Just about all of these threads are started by them.

Do you even bother to petition your elected representatives for policies to lower emissions?

Wake up. Canada and most other western nations have started to get on with it; even your own government, over your howls of protest, knows that the problem can't be ignored.

Your turn, Mr Concerned Skeptic. You have big elections coming up. Tell us what position you want your next government to take on the issue of AGW, and what they should be doing as a non-greenie-utopian, economically sensible, achievable approach to study, mitigation and/or adaptation.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins

New York, same period:






Incredibly detailed video shows how Manhattan has grown since the 1850s ¿ building by building | Daily Mail Online

The consequences of that 2 degrees on humanity has been, umm, beneficial?

[StuM]

I knew that was coming. Here's an alternative spiral:
- Bishop Hill blog - Spin this - JoshÂ*375

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

I knew that was coming. Here's an alternative spiral:
- Bishop Hill blog - Spin this - JoshÂ*375

Here's a graph from that same page:



How can anyone look at the line over the last 200 years and not agree that it's steeper and greater in magnitude than any of those preceding transitions?

[TurninTurtle]

Its still so small a change as to be attributable to instrument error....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

Its still so small a change as to be attributable to instrument error....

1.5 degrees Celcius (1800 to 2000) is an instrument error?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here's a graph from that same page:



How can anyone look at the line over the last 200 years and not agree that it's steeper and greater in magnitude than any of those preceding transitions?

How can anyone look at the line with recent annual temperatures grafted onto earlier proxies with decadal or multidecadal smoothing and think that the two different sets of data can honestly be directly compared.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by StuM

I knew that was coming. Here's an alternative spiral:
- Bishop Hill blog - Spin this - JoshÂ*375

Thanks, Stu.

From an astute commenter at your link...

Thanks to fossil fuels we have all sorts of inane occupations now where folk are paid to obsess about trivia rather than spend all their time just spending all out time just trying to survive on this hostile planet, which was the case prior to the industrial revolution. What is very well known since it is in every historical account ever written is that warm has been demonstrably better for life on Earth than cold. Ignorance about that very basic fact is nothing to boast about.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

How can anyone look at the line with recent annual temperatures grafted onto earlier proxies with decadal or multidecadal smoothing and think that the two different sets of data can honestly be directly compared.

Well, you can, actually. Apply decadal or multidecadal smoothing to the annual data and tell us what you see then.

(decadal smoothing doesn't hide trends that play out over several decades or more)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here's a graph from that same page:



How can anyone look at the line over the last 200 years and not agree that it's steeper and greater in magnitude than any of those preceding transitions?

Looking at the unsmoothed tel,s much more about the real world. Looks like we are almost as warm as around 400 ad ( the roman warm period ). And if you look at the historical we will soon experience a rather sharp decrease in global temps. The record for the mwp looks the same insofar as it shows a temperature spike warmer than today closely followed by a sharp drop in mean temps. ( I don't believe in coincidence) .

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Looking at the unsmoothed tel,s much more about the real world. Looks like we are almost as warm as around 400 ad ( the roman warm period ). And if you look at the historical we will soon experience a rather sharp decrease in global temps. The record for the mwp looks the same insofar as it shows a temperature spike warmer than today closely followed by a sharp drop in mean temps. ( I don't believe in coincidence) .

I love this response! Look at several temperature reconstructions, and pick the one that seems like an outlier but says what you want. Also appears to be the one without a valid reference. (Listed as "PiaCo" with no publication year.)

Out of curiosity, does anyone know anything about Hannhijarvi et al 2013 (the apparent source of this figure)? I did a quick 'web of science' search on that author and came up with nothing.

EDIT: I found it. The figure had a typo in the name, and that isn't the source of the figure, it is the source for PiaCo. That temperature reconstruction is only for the northernmost Atlantic region, which is generally accepted to have been warmer during the Medieval Climate Anamoly (or whatever the term du jour).

We apply PaiCo to a newly assembled collection of high-quality proxy data to recon- struct the mean temperature of the Northernmost Atlantic region, which we call Arctic Atlantic, over the last 2,000 years.

http://www.martintingley.com/wp-cont...3/04/PaiCo.pdf

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I love this response! Look at several temperature reconstructions, and pick the one that seems like an outlier but says what you want. Also appears to be the one without a valid reference. (Listed as "PiaCo" with no publication year.)

Out of curiosity, does anyone know anything about Hannhijarvi et al 2013 (the apparent source of this figure)? I did a quick 'web of science' search on that author and came up with nothing.

I didn't provide the plot I just read the results and you can look at any chart you want . Looking at the raw and not smoothed you will see the same as you put it outlier. The exact opposite outlier direction that agw ppl like to reference. BTW -20°c or -21°c is still darn cold ( I just picked these temp numbers out of thin air as an illustration as to the 1 deg celcius difference not really meaning a darn thing in the real world. )

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I love this response! Look at several temperature reconstructions, and pick the one that seems like an outlier but says what you want. Also appears to be the one without a valid reference. (Listed as "PiaCo" with no publication year.)

Out of curiosity, does anyone know anything about Hannhijarvi et al 2013 (the apparent source of this figure)? I did a quick 'web of science' search on that author and came up with nothing.

OK here ya go the hannhjarvi et al 2013 is a specific report by Judith curry
( Took all of 30 seconds to find)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Have a look for yourself. You should already know this, if you think you have enough of the picture to doubt the current science. Carbon put into the system is there til something takes it back out. The natural sinks don't take it out permanently, the extra carbon is now part of the cycle and will be released again - algae and plants die and rot, wood rots and burns, etc. Nothing in the natural cycle is taking significant amounts of carbon out of circulation and sequestering it again.

Well understood, L-E. But you seem to have missed my point that, if it's as bad as you & the mainstream science believe, then there's not much we can do to influence it even if we adopt all of Paris' recommendations and begin reducing our emissions dramatically. But this rather obvious logic train doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to reduce our emissions -- for lots of sound reasons that hopefully I don't have to list for you . . . again. Given the uncertainties inherent in future predictions, you have to make assumptions that fit the most plausible scientific theories and develop responses consistent with each one. The need for adaptation could not be more compelling based on your own comments about the permanence of the carbon cycle. Are you now understanding this issue, or do we need to turn another basic set of facts into another mindless, pedantic controversy?

That speech of yours has been repeated so many times I think you're now cutting and pasting from yourself. You claim to be skeptic with a genuine interest and concern, yet you spend most of your fireside chat telling us there's not much to be done. "Welp, all we can do is adapt."

Never said it's "all we can do," only that it is the obvious priority. Let's not waste any more carbon emissions going round & round with your penchant for misstating posters' positions, whether it's because you were born after the year 2000, you have very poor comprehension skills, or you (like SailOar) really believe that "messaging" needs to be prioritized at the expense of truth.

Bull. You decided that you won't support any attempt at mitigation because gummint! or similar, and instead of a full frontal attack on the science, you've switched to "there's nothing we can do". Not many are fooled by it.

Fooled by what?? The only position I've had is that the science is not nearly as settled as it's been (misleadingly) presented, and that any attempts at mitigation should reasonably line up with that reality. I also understand that many on this forum disagree and reasonably believe the science is either way more settled or is a load of crap. Such opinions don't bother me either, and often make for a more informative debate. What I don't believe is that, whatever position they hold, they don't share most peoples' concerns about the environment, their children & grandchildren, or the planet's overall welfare. I know this hurts your little basement bubble, but your side has no lock on the virtue despite needing to signal it more.

What I have learned probably more than anything else on this thread, however, is how intolerant those on your particular side of the issue are towards those who differ, and how personal it has become. Given all the educated posters with scientific and engineering backgrounds who have chimed in, and given all the professional & reputable scientists who differ with each other on the complex scientific theories, are YOU really that equipped to try and denigrate those who have doubts? I know I'm certainly not, but I doubt I can match your level of arrogance & ignorance.

Ahahahaha. It's not me blowing a trumpet about putting government subsidized solar panels on a commercial building and writing it off. I've never made it about me, it's about the problem.

Your repeated intolerance strongly suggests otherwise. And your continued non-response to questions about your own contribution to your "cause," and what you would suggest for others, compels a conclusion that you are a mere mouthpiece interested only in superficial self-gratification. With all your holier-than-thou proselytizing over "green energy," why else would you begrudge someone else installing solar panels, regardless of their motivation?? Aren't you the one repeatedly advocating for higher oil prices so there's stronger economic incentives to utilize alternative energy? Your level of transparent hypocrisy is over the top.

Ask yourself why so many have chosen CF to do their AGW ignorance signalling. Just about all of these threads are started by them.

OK, if I ever get to meet Keno (the OP) and we can get past discussing boats, sailing, guns, Ferrari's, solar panels, anchors, heads, cow farts, nuthouses, and more sailing, I'll be sure to ask why he started this thread. The terminology identified in the IBD article was "virtue signaling," btw, and referenced Leonard DiCaprio's speech before the UN on Earth Day to demonstrate how being a mere mouthpiece for "virtue" serves an excuse to do nothing else to reduce emissions. Pretty apt for you, no?

In the meantime, maybe you can tell us why you are one of the most prolific but also scientifically clueless posters on all these threads, and never miss an opportunity to profess your narrow & extreme political ideologies? Political leanings are worthy of respect, but I learned long ago that, given how complex and diverse the world was become, simple-sounding ideologies can only be the result of soft-thinking. So the only "extremism" I personally find myself trying to adhere to is moderation.

Wake up. Canada and most other western nations have started to get on with it; even your own government, over your howls of protest, knows that the problem can't be ignored.

I'm awake, and understand that western nations have been "getting on with it" for quite awhile now -- my guess is before YOU were even born. But hard to imagine the capitalist world doing anything right before YOU were born, right?? My only "howls of protest" are to dumb-ass, feel good, self-centered "solutions" that get politicians re-elected but don't match realities, and wind up hurting people who can least afford to be hurt. I find such protests much more compassionate and "progressive" than self-styled "Progressivism." But hey, that's just me.

Your turn, Mr Concerned Skeptic. You have big elections coming up. Tell us what position you want your next government to take on the issue of AGW, and what they should be doing as a non-greenie-utopian, economically sensible, achievable approach to study, mitigation and/or adaptation.

It might be "my turn" if you had finally opted to take yours, but it sounds like proposing realistic solutions aren't as personally satisfying for YOU as having a "cause" you can shout about. You are the whiner-in-chief for further change & reform to how we are dealing with CC, so tell us what you think will work and is feasible, and why what we are already doing is not enough. Delfin has already pointed out why the Paris agreement's unrealistically costly "solutions" to lowering temps only a marginal and inconsequential amount sound absurd, but I have yet to see a rational retort. Have at it, Mr. Climate Scientist/ Policymaker. We'll wait for you to dig up that Ph.D thesis you turned in on these subjects awhile back.

More seriously, I think a step in the right direction would be to establish a scientific rather than political body to serve as a clearinghouse where all the different theories can be presented and debated by the scientists themselves. If nothing else, it might restore some credibility to the scientific process which has been so severely compromised by the politics, most particularly in the eyes of the voting public.