Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Does this help?



More here:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrc...Report_Eng.pdf

Just read the synopsis.

Lol. I went looking for some representative data and I found this page:
Monthly Data Report for 1950

Yep Calgary in 1950 averaged 1.3° and in 2011 (the last complete year available) averaged 4.1°

Disregarding the fact that that is at an International airport which will have a lot more heat sources and tarmac than in 1950 (and thus a marked UHI effect), that sure looks scary.

But then I decided to look a bit further back and look at every 10 year point:

1890: 2.8
1900: 3.6
1910: 4.7
1920: 3.9
1930: 4.6
1940: 3.7
1950: 1.3
1960: 4.1
1970: 3.1
1980: 4.0
1990: 4.5
2000: 3.7
2010: 4.5

Any bets as to why they picked 1950 as the start point for their alarmism?

Why not start with 1910? Maybe 0.6° cooling in over a Century from 1910 to 2012 doesn't sound so good, does it?

(If you want it exactly Centennial then 1913 was 4.5° so it's 0.4° cooling in a Century)

OK, it's only one location, but I don't intend to waste my time looking at lots of Canadian weather stations' data where I suspect the pattern will be similar - and it does show how much "Global Warming" Jack's neighbourhood has experienced

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Do tell! What's my political affiliation?

Every generalization has exceptions.

All I did was change one stupid oversimplified generalization into another. One that at least has statistical evidence behind it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

And that's the one that is most unsettled - primarily as a result of the lack of research into drivers of natural climate change because of the over emphasis on CO2.

And

By examining how Earth cools itself back down after a period of natural warming, a study by scientists at Duke University and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirms that global temperature does not rise or fall chaotically in the long run. Unless pushed by outside forces, temperature should remain stable.

The new evidence may finally help put the chill on skeptics’ belief that long-term global warming occurs in an unpredictable manner, independently of external drivers such as human impacts.

“This underscores that large, sustained changes in global temperature like those observed over the last century require drivers such as increased greenhouse gas concentrations,” said lead author Patrick Brown, a PhD student at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

Natural climate cycles alone are insufficient to explain such changes, he said.

Brown and his colleagues published their peer-reviewed research Feb. 1 in the Journal of Climate.

https://nicholas.duke.edu/about/news...ternal-drivers

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

https://nicholas.duke.edu/about/news...ternal-drivers

What constitutes an "unnatural" climate cycle? The obvious inference is that man is influencing climate in an unnatural way.

Because global climate has changed repeatedly over the millennia, with no obvious input from the low or non-existent inventory of humans, what does explain the historical changes in climate?

What other processes are "unnatural" that caused the changes in climate?

(I admit I didn't read the study. My eyes are too tired from all the homework.)

[jackdale]

As opposed to anthropogenic.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yep Calgary in 1950 averaged 1.3° and in 2011 (the last complete year available) averaged 4.1°

Calgary looks like an extreme. 4.1 - 1.3 = 2.8

From my previous post

Over the last six decades, Canada has become warmer, with average temperatures over land increasing by 1.5°C between 1950 and 2010

You want some ice cream with that cherry you picked.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

What constitutes an "unnatural" climate cycle? The obvious inference is that man is influencing climate in an unnatural way.

All was well and natural cycles did their part of keeping CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm for over 800,000 years. During that time human beings evolved and domesticated plants suitable to that environment. During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback. There was a stable system in equilibrium.

Then in the mid 18th century we increased anthropogenic carbon emissions from 3 million tonnes per annum to almost 10 billion tonnes per annum. We were the trigger that added CO2. That increased CO2 levels by about 40% to over 400 ppm, a level not seen for for 3 - 5 million years. That messed up the equilibrium and system is now unstable.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And



https://nicholas.duke.edu/about/news...ternal-drivers

"Using global climate models... "

'nuf said!

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback. There was a stable system in equilibrium.

jack, that makes no sense to me.

A system with positive feedback is certainly not a "stable system in equilibrium."

Your post seems to say that stable CO2 levels is the objective. Why isn't a climate that exhibits natural variability the objective, independent of CO2 levels, since higher CO2 concentrations have positive effects as well as negative?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Calgary looks like an extreme. 4.1 - 1.3 = 2.8

From my previous post





You want some ice cream with that cherry you picked.

The blatant cherry pick is the 1950 start point, not the location.

Like I said, I chose a more or less random data point (actually, I picked it because it was relevant to you )
Since I had no idea what I would find, you can't call it a cherry pick. (Yet another failure to comprehend the meaning of an expression? )

So, next place I looked (selected just because it is a name I know on the other side of the country to the first data set:Ottawa

1900 6.1
1910 6.1
1920 5.6
1930 5.7
1940 4.2
1950 5.4

Similar result: 1950 lower than 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1930.

2 out of 2 random points support my contention - the odds on that happening by chance are only 1 in 4 , so we already have a 75% probability that I'm right

Maybe I'll go and look at 3 more and get a 97% consensus


Feel free to find a few locations where 1950 was not notably colder than the majority of the 5 preceding decadal data points.

Or come up with the national means for those preceding 10 decadal years if it proves my random sample is totally non representative.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

All was well and natural cycles did their part of keeping CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm for over 800,000 years. During that time human beings evolved and domesticated plants suitable to that environment. During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback. There was a stable system in equilibrium.

Then in the mid 18th century we increased anthropogenic carbon emissions from 3 million tonnes per annum to almost 10 billion tonnes per annum. We were the trigger that added CO2. That increased CO2 levels by about 40% to over 400 ppm, a level not seen for for 3 - 5 million years. That messed up the equilibrium and system is now unstable.

Your beloved stable 180-300 is based on ice cores.

And for the first century after the "mid 18th century", atmospheric CO2 increase at 10 times the rate that cumulative anthropogenic emissions did according to those same ice cores.




Care to explain where the other 90% of the increase came from?
Don't suppose it could be a consequence of the large natural temperature rise from 1750 to the early 1800's, could it?



And Plant stomata studies tell a very different story about historical CO2 levels.




Maybe the science isn't settled

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Or come up with the national means for those preceding 10 decadal years if it proves my random sample is totally non representative.

I did

Over the last six decades, Canada has become warmer, with average temperatures over land increasing by 1.5°C between 1950 and 2010

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Maybe the science isn't settled

Where did I say it was?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Your beloved stable 180-300 is based on ice cores.

And for the first century after the "mi 18th century", atmospheric CO2 increase at 10 times the rate that cumulative anthropogenic emissions did according to those same ice cores.




Care to explain where the other 90% of the increase came from?
Don't suppose it could be a consequence of the large natural temperature rise from 1750 to the early 1800's, could it?


And Plant stomata studies tell a very different story about historical CO2 levels.




Maybe the science isn't settled

Can you link to the sites from your draw those graphs please?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I did

Jack he said precedal not post so that would mean the decadal data from the preceding decades not the decades after 1950


Here is his statement quote from stu
Or come up with the national means for those preceding 10 decadal years if it proves my random sample is totally non representative.
End quote