Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I thought UAH had corrected for those necessary adjustments.

OK surface data





And recognizing that HADcrut4 underestimates Arctic temperatures. (Cowtan and Way)

UAH has corrected for those necessary adjustments occasioned by atmospheric friction, along with several others that have come to light. That was what the propaganda article you linked to obfuscated, but was clarified in the article that fryewe just linked to. Are you not also reading the underlying sources for the counter-arguments??

I don't understand what the second (HADcrut4) graph represents. But if you want to look at a single graph that compares the UAH to the surface data, it's been linked to repeatedly but most recently appears in fryewe's link as well. (For some reason my tablet wouldn't let me cut & paste it). As for Mears' RSS data, here's a link to the website which also includes the same sort of temp graphs. Upper Air Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems. I'm not sure I'm reading them right, but they look like they show more of a cooling trend than UAH.

[jackdale]

RSS



UAH



Also UAH



UAH Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per
decade

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/de...berGTR2015.pdf

That is lower than RSS.

The only cooling in RSS occurs in the stratosphere. Lower Tropospheric Stratosphere (TLS)



As predicted by the models.

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

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Whether I agree with his statement [that AGW is real and likely to be a problem], or not, is immaterial.

No, it's central. Why would you cite someone you don't agree with?

If climate science is real science, why is there a legal defense fund for climate scientists to fund their efforts to block FOIA requests for their work using public monies?

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund

If public viewing of publicly funded science work is such a big problem, why is there not a physical science defense fund, or a natural science defense fund, or a medical science defense fund, or an aeronautical science defense fund, or a nuclear science defense fund, or a...

We've done this one. Many if not most of the FOIA data requests that climate scientists currently have to field are from "skeptic" (denier) fronts and the volume and demands in these requests are intended to be disabling. And these requesters only intend to mine for any shred of anything they can whip into an attack;there's no undertaking to do anything constructive with them as McIntyre stated when asked.

As I also mentioned before... I'm in favour of FOIA. I do think that the requesters have to demonstrate that they have a bona fide interest in the data, and the competence to use it. I also think that if it's a government or institution that's on the receiving end of these FOIA requests, then additional funding must be provided to handle the burden of compliance if it's significant.

I guess the answer to your last question would depend on whether those institutions also faced a similar barrage of vexatious FOIA requests or the wrath of a powerful industry.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

As for Mears' RSS data, here's a link to the website which also includes the same sort of temp graphs. Upper Air Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems. I'm not sure I'm reading them right, but they look like they show more of a cooling trend than UAH.

Read the whole page.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Do you agree with the author that:

I repeat, once again, that I believe that the balance of the evidence suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds.

Yes? No?

I included Stu's highlights but added a couple in orange that together reveal the author's more honest appraisal of the current level of scientific uncertainty. He substitutes the oft-repeated but dubious "97% consensus" for "the balance of the evidence," and states that the evidence "suggests" (vs. "compels") that MMGW "could" (vs. "will") become a "significant" (vs. "overwhelming/disastrous") problem. Compare this, for e.g., to James Hansen's 2008 warning to Obama about the scientific certainty of catastrophic rising sea levels in 4 years.

For the layman at least, I don't think it's possible to give a "yes or no" answer, nor is one appropriate. Given the seriousness of the proposed changes to our socio-economic system in "fixing" the possibility of the more alarmist events occurring, it's more a question of which side has the burden of proof, or at least credible persuasion. And this can only appropriately fall on the MMGW proponents, some of whom are advocating that the science mandates such significant change. Given the current level of scientific uncertainty, and even taking into account Jack's "Precautionary Principle," I can't see how they have yet to meet that burden.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... Given the seriousness of the proposed changes to our socio-economic system...

...what serious proposed changes to our socio-economic system, specifically, are we to take as given?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...what serious proposed changes to our socio-economic system, specifically, are we to take as given?

YGTBKM. You're not that dense.

How about the proposals for the elimination of fossil fuels for energy generation and transportation, or curtailed "consumption" by developed nations, and transfer payments to developing nations? Does "energy prices are going to necessarily skyrocket" sound familiar?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

RSS

Why do these curves frequently drop a "trend" line along the data line for the period of the presentation, rather than a best fit curve? Wouldn't such a curve provide a better terms of reference for discussion of the past twenty years (18 some say) during which warming rate seems to have tapered off?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect:
...what serious proposed changes to our socio-economic system, specifically, are we to take as given?

Originally Posted by fryewe

YGTBKM. You're not that dense.

How about the proposals for the elimination of fossil fuels for energy generation and transportation, or curtailed "consumption" by developed nations, and transfer payments to developing nations? Does "energy prices are going to necessarily skyrocket" sound familiar?

You can't be serious, L-E. Weren't you just bemoaning the fact that low oil prices were not creating enough of a deterrent to reduce fossil fuel demand? That a sufficiently high carbon tax should be imposed? That society needs systemic solutions in moving to more renewables? And the best of all -- your praise for China's system of (tyrannical) centralized control that would more efficiently expedite emissions reductions and clean up their horrendous pollution. If you're still confused, then go back & read Mike's last post about what sorts of changes he thinks are needed. Maybe you agree with him and that's fine, but don't suggest that the sorts of solutions being proposed by the alarmist crowd wouldn't be seriously disruptive to our current system and way of life.

And you think putting a solar panel up on your roof is too expensive???

[StuM]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Why do these curves frequently drop a "trend" line along the data line for the period of the presentation, rather than a best fit curve? Wouldn't such a curve provide a better terms of reference for discussion of the past twenty years (18 some say) during which warming rate seems to have tapered off?

Because alarmists love extrapolating short linear trends out to absurd conclusions.

That's assuming they can even manage that. Remember the classic from one of the world's "best" climate scientists?
Phil Jones:
" I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here. What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won’t be statistically significant, but the trend is up."


Anything more complex that a simple linear trend line is clearly beyond their capabilities

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Why do these curves frequently drop a "trend" line along the data line for the period of the presentation, rather than a best fit curve? Wouldn't such a curve provide a better terms of reference for discussion of the past twenty years (18 some say) during which warming rate seems to have tapered off?

That is a trend for the totality of the data. If you want a specific time frame use the World Meteorological Organization time span of 30 years.

Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.

As Carl Mears stated, using 1997 is a start is classic cherry picking that gives inordinate emphasis to the largest El Nino event of the previous 50 years.

UAH does smooth the data over 13 months.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Because alarmists love extrapolating short linear trends out to absurd conclusions.


Anything more complex that a simple linear trend line is clearly beyond their capabilities

Look who uses cherry picked straight line trends.

These are ones about whom Mears complains.

No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record – The Pause lengthens again – just in time for UN Summit in Paris | Climate Depot

Lord Monckton posts this crap every month.

Notice his trend line is 0.25C above the mean. Above average temperatures are warmer.

[StuM]

> That is a trend for the totality of the data

The point being that it is a linear trend applied to what is, if you look at longer recordsets, clearly cyclic data.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Why do these curves frequently drop a "trend" line along the data line for the period of the presentation, rather than a best fit curve? Wouldn't such a curve provide a better terms of reference for discussion of the past twenty years (18 some say) during which warming rate seems to have tapered off?

That is called smoothing. What time period would you recommend? UAH uses 13 months.

30 years is the WMO standard for climate trends.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

RSS



UAH



Also UAH



UAH Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per
decade

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/de...berGTR2015.pdf

That is lower than RSS.

The only cooling in RSS occurs in the stratosphere. Lower Tropospheric Stratosphere (TLS)



As predicted by the models.

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

OK, I stand corrected, and completely screwed up the RSS graph comparing the troposhere to the stratosphere. But if I'm reading the graphs you just posted correctly, the difference in the avg. trend (over a decade) b'twn. the two different sets of sat data is minimal, namely 0.123° (RSS) vs. 0.11° (UAH). Yes, they both show slight warming, but the far more meaningful point is that they also both show a far cooler avg. trend than the surface modeling. And according to the science, temps in the troposhere should show a higher rate of warming than they do on the surface, but they obviously don't.

So yes, warmer in the troposhere & cooler in the stratosphere is also predicted by models, but that seems off point. It's the much cooler rate of warming in the troposhere compared to the much warmer modeling on the surface that is relevant and also askew. That's what the Christy graph that compares sat data with surface modeling plainly shows.