Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK your source NOAA predictions are very wrong.
The temperature predictions are for above average temps for November thru Jan
So far we are actually 3 to 5 deg f below average here.
Now for the precipitation forecast from September thru November it projected below normal rain however October was a record rainfall and for Nov thru Jan so far Nov was above normal and December is at this point the second wettest on record with just over 10.3 inches of rainfall . We shall see what Jan holds for us. But that is called weather. My point is that if NOAA gets it so wrong with as little as 4 to 6 months how can they be expected to get it right projecting out in years.

Your first comment was about snow. I gave you snow predictions.

Temperature and are not causal. The Arctic gets very little snow - it is too cold.

[jackdale]

Exile - climate science evolves, as does any science.

Just as the Standard Model hypothesized a Higgs boson, it took some time to find it.

[SailOar]

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming | NOAA

June 4, 2015

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.[...]

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century." [...]

Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014--the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.

Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."

In addition, more detailed information has been obtained regarding each ship's observation method. This information was also used to provide improved corrections for changes in the mix of observing methods.

New analyses with these data demonstrate that incomplete spatial coverage also led to underestimates of the true global temperature change previously reported in the 2013 IPCC report. The integration of dozens of data sets has improved spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have been rapidly increasing in recent decades. For example, the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative databank, integrated with NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily dataset and forty additional historical data sources, has more than doubled the number of weather stations available for analysis.

Lastly, the incorporation of additional years of data, 2013 and 2014, with 2014 being the warmest year on record, has had a notable impact on the temperature assessment. As stated by the IPCC, the "hiatus" period 1998-2012 is short and began with an unusually warm El Niño year. However, over the full period of record, from 1880 to present, the newly calculated warming trend is not substantially different than reported previously (0.68°C / Century (new) vs 0.65°C / Century (old)), reinforcing that the new corrections mainly have in impact in recent decades. [...]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your first comment was about snow. I gave you snow predictions.

Temperature and are not causal. The Arctic gets very little snow - it is too cold.

The page you linked showed warm and dry not cold and wet/white takes precip to make snow and it isn't to cold to snow in the Arctic.
Barrow gets about 3.5 ft of snow average a year. It is forecast to snow Thursday and Saturday but again that's weather

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming | NOAA

Ah the study that takes noaa weather buoy sea temperature data and adjusts the measured temperatures up to more closely match uncalibrated ship engine room sea water temperate data sets, that are generally less accurate then the weather buoy temperature probes. A truly lovely study on temperature adjustments to prove the pause away.

There are some questions about that study and how, er, rushed the peer review was.

Edit: A lovely link discussing some of the issues with the Karl Study
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/ha...lobal-warming/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The page you linked showed warm and dry not cold and wet/white takes precip to make snow and it isn't to cold to snow in the Arctic.

The graphs show temperature and precipitation.

The Arctic's annual precipitation is low, with most of the area receiving less than 50 cm (20 in). High winds often stir up snow, creating the illusion of continuous snowfall.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Exile - climate science evolves, as does any science.

Just as the Standard Model hypothesized a Higgs boson, it took some time to find it.

Can't find fault with climate science evolving like any other, but in this case it seems as though a scientific conclusion (in the form of a consensus) has been reached while a myriad of factors the scientists themselves deem relevant are either left out or not correctly estimated. The political push to reach such a conclusion/consensus may have rendered it premature, if not erroneous. How is society supposed to be convinced that they need to solve a problem based on a scientific theory that appears to be still in development?

"Higgs boson??"

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Higgs boson??"

Often called the God Particle.

The Higgs boson (or Higgs particle) is a particle that gives mass to other particles. Peter Higgs was the first person to think of it, and the particle was found in March 2013. It is part of the Standard Model in physics, which means it is found everywhere.

Physics is one of my passions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah the study that takes noaa weather buoy sea temperature data and adjusts the measured temperatures up to more closely match uncalibrated ship engine room sea water temperate data sets, that are generally less accurate then the weather buoy temperature probes. A truly lovely study on temperature adjustments to prove the pause away.

There are some questions about that study and how, er, rushed the peer review was.

Edit: A lovely link discussing some of the issues with the Karl Study
Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? | Climate Etc.

Uh-Oh . . . Judith Curry again. Professor Curry does have a talent for summing things up though:

The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah the study that takes noaa weather buoy sea temperature data and adjusts the measured temperatures up to more closely match uncalibrated ship engine room sea water temperate data sets, that are generally less accurate then the weather buoy temperature probes. A truly lovely study on temperature adjustments to prove the pause away.

There are some questions about that study and how, er, rushed the peer review was.

Edit: A lovely link discussing some of the issues with the Karl Study
Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? | Climate Etc.

She beat me to it...
Give me control of the Raw Data and I will show you what ever you want the data to show.

Classic but in the end the Reputation of REAL Science may never recover from this SCAM....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Often called the God Particle.

The Higgs boson (or Higgs particle) is a particle that gives mass to other particles. Peter Higgs was the first person to think of it, and the particle was found in March 2013. It is part of the Standard Model in physics, which means it is found everywhere.

Physics is one of my passions.

Now how would you expect a guy who struggled with basic chemistry to know about that one?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah the study that takes noaa weather buoy sea temperature data and adjusts the measured temperatures up to more closely match uncalibrated ship engine room sea water temperate data sets, that are generally less accurate then the weather buoy temperature probes. A truly lovely study on temperature adjustments to prove the pause away.

There are some questions about that study and how, er, rushed the peer review was.

Edit: A lovely link discussing some of the issues with the Karl Study
Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? | Climate Etc.

My question on those engine room temps were they taken before or after the heat exchanger?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Physics is one of my passions.

Don't tell me you also bought into the Big Bang Theory...let me guess....
Remember that "settled Science" and "consensus"...too bad it is now swept under the rug of consensus junk science.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by newhaul

My question on those engine room temps were they taken before or after the heat exchanger?

They are taken at the sea chest. The temperature is used to fine tune the fuel metering. The accuracy is not very good, not at all good to be used for climate models. The Karl study used the Ship temperature data and adjusted the SST to be more in line with ship temperaure, which gee was always higher.

The Karl folks did not use the Arco bouy or drifter bouys which have very accurate temperature sensors. They did not use the data because it was not sea surface temperature (sst), but 10 meters below the surface. Yet ship seachests are ~15 meters below the surface. Karl adjusted the SST data to be more inline with the ships data.

Dr. Curry, has a delightful way with words.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Don't tell me you also bought into the Big Bang Theory...let me guess....
Remember that "settled Science" and "consensus"...too bad it is now swept under the rug of consensus junk science.

Now now don't anger Dr cooper.