Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is the second sentence. Now go read the first.

I said I was really skeptical about gw I know what I wrote I was paraphrasing the entire article you linked to
And we both know it.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

More like 3.6°. IOW, February 2016 was almost certainly colder that any May, June, July, August or September in the last 10,000 years (including the years of the Little Ice Age).

Or not...

February breaks global temperature records by 'shocking' amount | The Guardian

The Nasa data shows the average global surface temperature in February was 1.35C warmer than the average temperature for the month between 1951-1980, a far bigger margin than ever seen before. The previous record, set just one month earlier in January, was 1.15C above the long-term average for that month.

“Nasa dropped a bombshell of a climate report,” said Jeff Masters and Bob Henson, who analysed the data on the Weather Underground website. “February dispensed with the one-month-old record by a full 0.21C – an extraordinary margin to beat a monthly world temperature record by.”[...]

[SailOar]

Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change | PHYS.ORG

Bringing together authors of seven different consensus studies,
Cook and his team show that among climate experts the rate of agreement
about human-caused climate change is between 90 to 100 percent.
Credit: University of Queensland, John Garrett

A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. The group includes Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University.

"What's important is that this is not just one study—it's the consensus of multiple studies," Green says. This consistency across studies contrasts with the language used by climate change doubters. This perspective stems from, as the authors write, "conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent."

Environmental Research Letters published the paper this week. In it, the team lays out what they call "consensus on consensus" and draws from seven independent consensus studies by the co-authors. This includes a study from 2013, in which the researchers surveyed more than 11,000 abstracts and found most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. Through this new collaboration, multiple consensus researchers—and their data gathered from different approaches—lead to essentially the same conclusion.

The key factor comes down to expertise: The more expertise in climate science the scientists have, the more they agree on human-caused climate change.[...]

"The public has a very skewed view of how much disagreement there is in the scientific community," she says. Only 12 percent of the US public are aware there is such strong scientific agreement in this area, and those who reject mainstream climate science continue to claim that there is a lack of scientific consensus. People who think scientists are still debating climate change do not see the problem as urgent and are unlikely to support solutions.[...]


Greater consensus on human-caused climate change increases with expertise in climate science.
Credit: University of Queensland, John Garrett

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK now I am really sceptical of gw
Here is an excerpt from the link jack just posted
The planet overall is around 3 °C cooler during the northern hemisphere winter than during its summer. So even though February was 1.35 °C warmer than the 1951 to 1980 average for February according to the NASA GISS record, the planet was still cooler overall in February than it was during the previous July

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yes jack I did after all I typed it.
Here is what I read and I'm paraphrasing .
The planet was 3°c cooler this past February than it was last July .
That's the planet not the northern half of it.
So I seem to be reading global cooling not warming

I don't know what you're reading, but it certainly isn't what's written in the original article. Our planet is warming, not cooling, and the article states that quite clearly.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Which obviously means that it is also 3°C cooler in the southern hemisphere summer than during its winter.

Nope. That is not what that sentence says.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I don't know what you're reading, but it certainly isn't what's written in the original article. Our planet is warming, not cooling, and the article states that quite clearly.

Actually the first post you quoted of mine in this exchange is a direct quote from the article. The second one you quoted is just my paraphrasing of the first one.

[newhaul]

I wonder why they choose the dates of 1951 to 1980 to average for the baseline .
Other than the cooler than average temps for that period.
I don't know about the rest of the planet but it was cold here during most of the 1970's ( considerably below the normal averages for the region I grew up in.

[Kenomac]

Unintended consequences of this thread...

I'm looking into hiring a private contractor to install 10-13 high efficiency solar panels on my home/business rooftop to bring our solar production to 100% when combined with our existing 8kw system.

The efficiency has increased, cost is way down and I'm looking ahead five or six years. No government assistance on this project with rebates, grants etc.... Way too much BS and red tape.

If anyone has suggestions on high quality, high efficiency panels... Please let me know.

Lake-effect and Jack.... Please take note. Start putting your money where your mouth is.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I wonder why they choose the dates of 1951 to 1980 to average for the baseline ...

The period of 1951-1980 was chosen as the baseline for the GISS study largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980.

However, there are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to.
Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center).
The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville).
All are anomaly data, i.e., the difference between temperature at a given time and that during a baseline period.
As noted, for GISS the baseline is 1951 to 1980.
For HadCRU it’s 1961 to 1990
For NCDC it’s the 20th century
And for satellite data the baseline is 1979 to 1999.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change | PHYS.ORG

Shhh. That's much too close to their politics religion. Without their pretense that there's no "consensus" and the science is suspect, they don't really have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The efficiency [of solar power] has increased, cost is way down and I'm looking ahead five or six years.

Lake-effect and Jack.... Please take note. Start putting your money where your mouth is.

You, sir, are a hard act to follow. We all aspire, not everyone will succeed. I'm still working on the lower rungs of that ladder: Buying a vintage Ferrari, getting that Oyster, acquiring income property... much to do before I can consider (and write off) solar panels. Be patient.

Seriously, I'm glad that a guy like you is going for it, it confirms that the technology has and will continue to improve as I expected. This happened, even though many of a certain political stripe railed that it would never work, it won't scale, it's just a boondoggle, subsidies and grants are a waste of taxpayer money... You're about to reap the benefits of a technology that all us greenie soshulists have been fighting for all these years. You're welcome.

[SailOar]

NASA source



NOAA source



Japan Meteorological Agency source



UK Meteorological Service source

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change | PHYS.ORG

Not the 97% Meme Myth again...sheesh this was shown to be a scam what...dozens of pages ago?

Kinda like:
4 out of 5 Dentists Recommend Crest tooth paste.

Must we really list all the "Consensus Myths" that have been shattered over the years.

Anyone who uses the Consensus argument doesn't understand Science...because Science ISN'T about consensus...it's about the Scientific Method, which the MMGW Cultists Run from, so they use the fake Consensus as cover.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

4 out of 5 Dentists Recommend Crest tooth paste.

Really was only 4 out of a 100, but they got to chose which 5 to count and made sure that those 4 were in it. That's an example of how statistics rarely mean what people think they mean.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Really was only 4 out of a 100, but they got to chose which 5 to count and made sure that those 4 were in it. That's an example of how statistics rarely mean what people think they mean.

Oh crap....

[SV THIRD DAY]

It's hard being Mr Cold Blanket to the MMGW folks...but as my wife says..."Being a cold blanket to people's dreams is your expertise"...hmm...on second thought was that a compliment...

But on the bright side, these MMGW Internet Scientists DID stay at the Holiday Inn Select last night...so they have that going for them, not quite the "total consciousness on their death bed" type of thing...but hey, you take what you can get.

Gunga Galunga...