Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

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

??

Hannhijavi et al 2013 is how you would list a reference to a paper by Hannhijarvi and additional authors in 2013. It can't possibly be a report by Judith Curry or it would be listed as Curry et al <some year>. (That and you didn't include anything.)

But see my edit. I found the paper.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

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, I was looking at the same chart you were. I am not following your response. The chart we are both looking at shows several reconstructions from different sources. Only one shows temperatures comparable to present day during the Medieval Climate Anomaly. That reconstruction (listed as PiaCo in the legend) only includes the northernmost Atlantic region.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

1 deg celcius difference not really meaning a darn thing in the real world. )

The issue is NOT the current amount of warming, it's the trend.

The trend, on any graph you care to reference, shows a temperature increase over the last two hundred years, whose slope is steeper and range is greater than any other period on that chart. Zero in on the last 50 or 60 years, it's even steeper.

Add to that the finding that warming from CO2 lags the buildup by many years... we have yet to experience the full effect of what's already been accumulated.

So we're worried about a bit more than 1 degree Celcius.

[newhaul]

Mr f if you would like to look at the graph again the entire thing is based on Arctic temps not just one set of datum

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The issue is NOT the current amount of warming, it's the trend.

The trend, on any graph you care to reference, shows a temperature increase over the last two hundred years, whose slope is steeper and range is greater than any other period on that chart. Zero in on the last 50 or 60 years, it's even steeper.

Add to that the finding that warming from CO2 lags the buildup by many years... we have yet to experience the full effect of what's already been accumulated.

So we're worried about a bit more than 1 degree Celcius.

You referenced the graph I just read it and responded to what I saw

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Mr f if you would like to look at the graph again the entire thing is based on Arctic temps not just one set of datum

Last I checked, the Arctic was not only comprised of the northern Atlantic.

EDIT: I realized that I mentioned the MCA specifically (and you mentioned earlier spikes), but this discrepancy covers essentially the entire span up to 1250.

[mr_f]

More relevant information from Hanhijarvi et al 2013

Comparisons of the PaiCo reconstruction to recent reconstructions covering larger areas indicate greater climatic variability in the Arctic Atlantic than for the Arctic as a whole.

Our study clearly demonstrates that the late-Holocene climate was more variable and extreme in the North Atlantic region than Arctic as a whole. This finding is in accordance with Mann et al. (2009) who found Medieval warmth and LIA cooling to be particularly pronounced in the high-latitude North Atlantic.

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

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

...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.

You're kidding. " there's not much we can do". Oh there's lots we can do. We can make it worse.

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?

The whole thread is a mindless pedantic controversy, but anyways... OK, let's adapt. What should we start to do now to adapt?

... 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.

Haha again. I have not done so precisely because I have no intention of "signalling virtue" AND because it's irrelevant to the issue. A handful of liveaboards with solar panels on their rental properties is not exactly a model that scales. I don't begrudge it, I have even praised it; what I begrudge is being goaded with it by a bunch of 10 year olds like it's material. Who's signalling virtue, again?

And I'm just another anonymous poster on the Internet. People do not rush up to me in the supermarket to praise my eco-virtue.

I annoy you? It's mutual. We could stop it anytime, y'know.

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.

Heh. In the relatively few times that I have directly responded to a scientific point, either just one reply or staying with it... no one has returned or stayed in to actually disprove what I asserted. I'm sure there's one or two instances where i am wrong; I'm not perfect, but they are the exceptions in this thread.

Some great recent examples where the poster was dead wrong but rabbited on for PAGES... embarrassing.

The sad fact is... most of the publicly traded skeptic or denier arguments are simply weak sauce. They're some combination of irrelevant, immaterial, misrepresented or just flat out wrong. I have a technical/engineering background, but honestly it takes very little to see through most of the arguments, without even needing to fall back on other websites to counter them. So many of the links brandished at me already contain the material that disproves the claimed point. And there's been some shocking math fails.

Arrogance is a fault, but man, when the commenter is being so aggressive with such weak backup, pity only goes so far. And again, the attitude isn't all on one side.

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.

Paris isn't just about "lowering temps only a marginal and inconsequential amount"; Delfin can't/won't admit that. You?

Anyways - nope, it's absolutely your turn, and timely, given your upcoming elections. All we hear about is how "alarmist" and dire and dystopian and ulterior and wrong the greenie AGW predictions and solutions are. It's long past time for some pragmatic, realistic, feet-on-the-ground conservatives to step in and make it right. (you see what i did there? ) President-elect Exile, what is your policy and response to AGW for the four years of your term?

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.

I could not agree more with this. Moreover, since the IPCC didn't cut the mustard with you, I think the US should ASAP convene a strictly scientific council or hearing, welcome any submissions from QUALIFIED specialists, and in a completely public and transparent process, open to scientific vetting and validation, review the science and the submissions and reach their own conclusions. Go as far as to create new models and run those. If it takes one or two years, so beit. We could stop all the nonsense once and for all.

I suspect there's a reason this hasn't really happened yet, either publicly or independently undertaken. There's no parallel SPCC (skeptics panel on climate change) that have produced their own models from the same data, is there? I believe it's because all the CREDIBLE skeptical findings, when properly factored in, still don't materially affect the outcome. But I would abide by the results of a sufficiently thorough, open and scientific process. Would you?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Hmmm, something as significant as this and no one responded to it. Is it an inconvenience or are people so consumed with scoring points on this thread that it's not even been noticed.

OH MY GOD...... WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIE!!!

Now... Back to my gelato.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

OH MY GOD...... WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIE!!!

Now... Back to my gelato.

This is a true statement.

Enjoy your gelato while you can.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Haha again. I have not done so precisely because I have no intention of "signalling virtue" AND because it's irrelevant to the issue. A handful of liveaboards with solar panels on their rental properties is not exactly a model that scales. I don't begrudge it, I have even praised it; what I begrudge is being goaded with it by a bunch of 10 year olds like it's material. Who's signalling virtue, again?

Hmmm... Looks material to me.

Would you like to see pictures of how our Oyster's stern array will look?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Would you like to see pictures of how our Oyster's stern array will look?

yes, actually. Maybe in the Electrical: batts/gen/solar forum? Less noise there, and more people would get to see it.

How are the Bromptons? Do they 'bounce'?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

How are the Bromptons? Do they 'bounce'?

The Bromptons perform surprisingly well, I'm having a good time riding them. No bounce, and they're great in traffic and in sidewalk traffic with people all around. Getting them on and off the boat is a cinch.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're kidding. " there's not much we can do". Oh there's lots we can do. We can make it worse.

And it will get worse, either because the science is correct, or because one political faction needs ongoing problems to make themselves relevant. But if it's science rather than politics that winds up carrying the day, then technology will fix it and/or we'll adapt. Just like we've done every other time there have been warm & cool cycles. I haven't seen any evidence that people living in N. Europe during the MWP had any trouble adapting to their higher temps. In contrast, many people in the Middle East who haven't learned how to resolve their political differences without killing each other will have trouble adapting regardless of what their climate does, and irrespective of whether their forebears were victims of colonization or not. Reality often sucks, but it's still reality.

The whole thread is a mindless pedantic controversy, but anyways... OK, let's adapt. What should we start to do now to adapt?

Preach a more credible, inclusive message that there's something we need to adapt TO. But this isn't my cause celebrè, it's yours.

Haha again. I have not done so precisely because I have no intention of "signalling virtue" AND because it's irrelevant to the issue. A handful of liveaboards with solar panels on their rental properties is not exactly a model that scales. I don't begrudge it, I have even praised it; what I begrudge is being goaded with it by a bunch of 10 year olds like it's material. Who's signalling virtue, again?

Certainly not Keno or Newhaul. They're simply making financial & lifestyle choices that also coincide with using and emitting less emissions. And you my poor naive young friend? Did you manage to get the cans in the proper bin this time?

And I'm just another anonymous poster on the Internet. People do not rush up to me in the supermarket to praise my eco-virtue.

But then you're also not Leonard DiCaprio. If only . . . .

I annoy you? It's mutual. We could stop it anytime, y'know.

I'm afraid you'd have to leave your safe space a bit more often to be less annoying.

Heh. In the relatively few times that I have directly responded to a scientific point, either just one reply or staying with it... no one has returned or stayed in to actually disprove what I asserted. I'm sure there's one or two instances where i am wrong; I'm not perfect, but they are the exceptions in this thread.

Some great recent examples where the poster was dead wrong but rabbited on for PAGES... embarrassing.

The sad fact is... most of the publicly traded skeptic or denier arguments are simply weak sauce. They're some combination of irrelevant, immaterial, misrepresented or just flat out wrong. I have a technical/engineering background, but honestly it takes very little to see through most of the arguments, without even needing to fall back on other websites to counter them. So many of the links brandished at me already contain the material that disproves the claimed point. And there's been some shocking math fails.

Arrogance is a fault, but man, when the commenter is being so aggressive with such weak backup, pity only goes so far. And again, the attitude isn't all on one side.

Clearly you're a legend in your own mind. A background in technical/engineering but experience in marketing. Probably overqualified compared to the 30-something "aspiring novelist" who is the US president's closest advisor on foreign policy, but maybe you are in fact a paid internet shill. Only plausible explanation I can think of for your uniquely low level of discourse on this thread -- at least the only that wouldn't violate the forum's "be nice" rule that is.

Paris isn't just about "lowering temps only a marginal and inconsequential amount"; Delfin can't/won't admit that. You?

Bestow us with your brilliance. Speak to the estimates & costs involved in lowering temps over __x__ many years and at __x__ cost. Afraid to interrupt your legendary streak of being "right" on the science? What exactly can't/won't Delfin admit, or does it make for better internet "messaging" to simply leave it as an insinuation?

Anyways - nope, it's absolutely your turn, and timely, given your upcoming elections. All we hear about is how "alarmist" and dire and dystopian and ulterior and wrong the greenie AGW predictions and solutions are. It's long past time for some pragmatic, realistic, feet-on-the-ground conservatives to step in and make it right. (you see what i did there? ) President-elect Exile, what is your policy and response to AGW for the four years of your term?

I couldn't be elected to county clerk or dog catcher for that matter, nor would I want to be. Besides, with a name like Exile I'd be attacked for not being native-born. I do find it remarkable & revealing, however, that the most strenuous critics of current policies towards MMGW are the least willing (or able??) to propose additional remedies.

I could not agree more with this. Moreover, since the IPCC didn't cut the mustard with you, I think the US should ASAP convene a strictly scientific council or hearing, welcome any submissions from QUALIFIED specialists, and in a completely public and transparent process, open to scientific vetting and validation, review the science and the submissions and reach their own conclusions. Go as far as to create new models and run those. If it takes one or two years, so beit. We could stop all the nonsense once and for all.

A good marketing statement, but tough to implement when people like you can't even understand the nature of the criticism surrounding the IPCC, NASA, and other "mainstream" yet highly politicized bodies. Understanding opposing views does not necessarily mean agreement, or are you having trouble with that one too? Another problem with spending too much time in safe places me thinks.

I suspect there's a reason this hasn't really happened yet, either publicly or independently undertaken. There's no parallel SPCC (skeptics panel on climate change) that have produced their own models from the same data, is there? I believe it's because all the CREDIBLE skeptical findings, when properly factored in, still don't materially affect the outcome. But I would abide by the results of a sufficiently thorough, open and scientific process. Would you?

Yes. Why don't we convene the first meeting after solid evidence of the next cyclical cooling period becomes available. According to some, this could be right around the corner or has already begun.

[iyamwhatiyam]

I think we can simplify this debate by asking the question; "Would we all be better off if NYC was covered by a sheet of ice?"