Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sometimes science is counter-intuitive.

Well just where does that leave this discussion then?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sometimes science is counter-intuitive.



Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns | Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

And Curry is a skeptic.

I still say it has more to do with the 40 plus active Russian ice breakers.

[jackdale]

Current state of Arctic ice

Arctic sea ice extent for February averaged 14.22 million square kilometers (5.48 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the satellite record. It is 1.16 million square kilometers (448,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.4 million square kilometers (5.94 million square miles) and is 200,000 square kilometers (77,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month recorded in 2005.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Well just where does that leave this discussion then?

We were kind of hoping you'd leave it with the scientists.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We were kind of hoping you'd leave it with the scientists.

That's great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Means this is all done.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
Speaking of, I wonder how much of a scientific "consensus" would support the White House's position that recent extreme cold events constitute evidence of warming? Is this really backed up by mainstream science, or just more political propaganda?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sometimes science is counter-intuitive.

I wouldn't doubt that, but the White House is explicitly or implicitly blaming this "extreme cold = evidence of MMGW" phenomenon squarely on human factors. So I ask again -- do the several opinions set forth in the article you cited below represent a sufficiently convincing scientific consensus so as to be represented as such by the president of the U.S.?

Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns | Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

And Curry is a skeptic.

True, but not as to humans having some sort of an impact. Just not agreeing that there's evidence thus far discovered of a significant and/or dangerous human impact as compared to natural forces. In other words, Curry is squarely within John Cook's infamous 97-99%.

But are you saying that the Obama White House is now relying on a well-known skeptic like Dr. CURRY to support it's latest gambit at blaming humankind for GW? This is the same Curry, as I'm sure you recall, who seems to be the loudest critic of the mainstream theory that MMGW is causing Arctic ice melt. Are you suggesting we actually believe these esteemed scientists on a selective basis? But hasn't L-E been telling us we're supposed to believe everything they tell us? But wait, Curry is as highly credentialed as the mainstream ones. That must mean we're only supposed to believe the ones who agree with our particular entrenched opinions, regardless of their credentials. Am I getting this right? It's all so confusing . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Current state of Arctic ice

Quote:
Arctic sea ice extent for February averaged 14.22 million square kilometers (5.48 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the satellite record. It is 1.16 million square kilometers (448,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.4 million square kilometers (5.94 million square miles) and is 200,000 square kilometers (77,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month recorded in 2005.



Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

How come you so readily accept satellite data when it comes to sea ice, but don't want to acknowledge the 800-lb. gorilla in the room that constitutes the satellite-based/UAH temp record over the past few decades? Of course, I know it couldn't be because the sat temp data shows little or no warming, right?? Sounds kinda like selective science again to me, but whaddya I know??

Btw, and in all seriousness, how significant is the grey area on the graph above which the legend shows as +/-2 deviation? If it is akin to a margin of error, then most of the recorded winters are within it. Just not sure that's how it is supposed to be interpreted . . . .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

How come you so readily accept satellite data when it comes to sea ice, but don't want to acknowledge the 800-lb. gorilla in the room that constitutes the satellite-based/UAH temp record over the past few decades? Of course, I know it couldn't be because the sat temp data shows little or no warming, right?? Sounds kinda like selective science again to me, but whaddya I know??

Btw, and in all seriousness, how significant is the grey area on the graph above which the legend shows as +/-2 deviation? If it is akin to a margin of error, then most of the recorded winters are within it. Just not sure that's how it is supposed to be interpreted . . . .

I have never rejected satellite data from either UAH or RSS.

UAH and RSS data over the 30 year WMO standard for climate data.





I regularly quote Carl Mears of RSS, especially

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems

I also use RSS to show that climate models accurately predicted "That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool."





+++++++++++++++++++

SD is not an error margin.

In statistics, the standard deviation (SD, also represented by the Greek letter sigma σ or s) is a measure that is used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values.

As an example the SD on the IQ scale is 15; 2/3 of the population is between 85 and 115.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is this really backed up by mainstream science, or just more political propaganda?

If it's propaganda... to what end?

But hasn't L-E been telling us we're supposed to believe everything they tell us?

I haven't, but that's neither here nor there.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile:
Speaking of, I wonder how much of a scientific "consensus" would support the White House's position that recent extreme cold events constitute evidence of warming? Is this really backed up by mainstream science, or just more political propaganda?



True, but not as to humans having some sort of an impact. Just not agreeing that there's evidence thus far discovered of a significant and/or dangerous human impact as compared to natural forces. In other words, Curry is squarely within John Cook's infamous 97-99%.

But are you saying that the Obama White House is now relying on a well-known skeptic like Dr. CURRY to support it's latest gambit at blaming humankind for GW? This is the same Curry, as I'm sure you recall, who seems to be the loudest critic of the mainstream theory that MMGW is causing Arctic ice melt. Are you suggesting we actually believe these esteemed scientists on a selective basis? But hasn't L-E been telling us we're supposed to believe everything they tell us? But wait, Curry is as highly credentialed as the mainstream ones. That must mean we're only supposed to believe the ones who agree with our particular entrenched opinions, regardless of their credentials. Am I getting this right? It's all so confusing . . . .

The most of Curry's work is classified as "No Position" by Cook et al

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91datafile.txt

She is also one of Inhofe's favourites.

From his Facebook page

"A great quote from Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, “No one really believes that the ‘science is settled’ or that ‘the debate is over.’ Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.”"

https://www.facebook.com/jiminhofe/p...41732019211644

She was one of the skeptics in the APS workshop on climate change policy.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements...eview-bios.pdf

[senormechanico]

Where were all the "deniers" in 1950?
Why didn't the "hockey stick" kick in then? Hmmmm???

I don't bother reading all this thread's B.S. but check in once in awhile to see who is too involved trying to prove wrong everyone who doesn't believe in the end of the world as we know it.

Hey jack, take a day off and go sailing.
Why this thread even exists can only be because CF likes thread counts and total clicks for advertising revenue.


I sail, I praise God and care not about globull warming.





http://realclimatescience.com/wp-con.../8518750-2.png

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

http://realclimatescience.com/wp-con.../8518750-2.png

Really - Tony Heller AKA the mythical Steve Goddard. Next up the tooth fairy.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have never rejected satellite data from either UAH or RSS.

UAH and RSS data over the 30 year WMO standard for climate data.





I regularly quote Carl Mears of RSS, especially

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems

I also use RSS to show that climate models accurately predicted "That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool."





All well & fine, but what you don't do is attempt to acknowledge the disparities b'twn. the sat data & the surface temp data, or the sat data & the modeling, let alone an attempt to reconcile. The only attempts I've read are critiques against the methodology, but those same sorts of critiques are also lodged against the surface data. So this leads me to the conclusion that the science is unsettled.

+++++++++++++++++++

SD is not an error margin.

In statistics, the standard deviation (SD, also represented by the Greek letter sigma σ or s) is a measure that is used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values.

As an example the SD on the IQ scale is 15; 2/3 of the population is between 85 and 115.

Got it, and enjoyed the analogy. What the heck, I don't recall any SD questions on the IQ test, so in asking about it I figured I was safe from outing myself as below the SD -15. Who knew??

[Reefmagnet]

I conclude El-Nino's should be regulated against. They are big contributors to global warming.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The most of Curry's work is classified as "No Position" by Cook et al

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91datafile.txt

She is also one of Inhofe's favourites.

Yes, but is Inhofe one of her's? I bet Mann is the fav of a lot of politicians who are all signed up with the mainstream crowd, incl. the U.S. Prez. Any relevance to the scientific debate?

From his Facebook page

"A great quote from Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, “No one really believes that the ‘science is settled’ or that ‘the debate is over.’ Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.”"

https://www.facebook.com/jiminhofe/p...41732019211644

I don't know about "great," but certainly prophetic. I'd say Curry's reasons for her predicted erosion of public trust are dead on.

She was one of the skeptics in the APS workshop on climate change policy.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements...eview-bios.pdf

So you disapprove of her as an Inhofe (don't forget Cruz) stooley when it comes to her skepticism about MMGW and human-caused Arctic ice melt, but cite her with approval when it comes to the WH position on extreme cold weather being an indicator of MMGW?

Lemme try and get this straight: According to Curry, melting sea ice is more likely attributable to natural forces than human impact. But that same ice pack -- diminished mostly from natural forces according to Curry -- may be contributing to recent cold weather. So how again does Curry support the WH position statement that attributes cold weather directly to MMGW??