Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2108950]On the first page the newest article is 2008. "We review the evidence that connects drought and desertification in the Sahel with climate change past, present and future. Advances in climate modeling point to the oceans, not land, as the cause of the recent persistence of drought in the Sahel."[/QUOTE]

So the models show drought in the Sahel while observations show greening.

Doesn't that tell you anything?

[SailOar]

Global warming could deplete the oceans’ oxygen – with severe consequences | Washington Post

[...] The oceans are getting warmer — they are, after all, where 90 percent of global warming actually ends up. And when they warm up they expand, because that’s what warm water does. This raises our sea levels, but it also has another effect — it reduces the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. That’s simply physics: Warmer water contains less oxygen.

But it’s worse: If surface water is warmer, it doesn’t mix down as much into the ocean depths any longer. It’s less dense, and so less capable of doing that. That means that oxygen that enters the ocean in its upper layers — either through exchange with the atmosphere, or because it is generated by tiny photosynthesizing microorganisms, called phytoplankton, that hang out up there — won’t mix down into the deep as often.

“What’s happening is, there’s a physical mechanism that impedes the delivery of surface waters into the interior,” said Matthew Long, an oceanographer with the National Center for Atmospheric Research who is lead author of a troubling new study on what scientists call the “deoxygenation” of the oceans. The work appeared in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, co-authored with Curtis Deutsch of the University of Washington and Taka Ito of the Georgia Institute of Technology.[...]

Now, in the new study, Long and his colleagues have found that some parts of the ocean are already likely showing an oxygen deficiency, due to the effects of global warming. And by around the year 2030, their model suggests, the human role in driving widespread ocean oxygen loss will be even more apparent if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked.[...]

The problem won’t be as bad at the ocean surface, where there is oxygen exchange with the atmosphere and a major oxygen source in the form of marine phytoplankton, which give off oxygen through the process of photosynthesis. Rather, it will most severely impact deeper waters of what the study calls the “ocean interior,” which will no longer receive as much of an exchange of oxygen-rich waters with the surface.[...]


Deoxgenation due to climate change is already detectable in some parts of the ocean. New research from NCAR finds that it will likely become widespread between 2030 and 2040. Other parts of the ocean, shown in gray, will not have detectable loss of oxygen due to climate change even by 2100. (Image courtesy Matthew Long, NCAR.)

[mikemenza]

Got a CFC license @ 1990. Learned about ozone depletion process. So I followed UV. Pretty much everything they (scientists) predicted in the late 80s has come true. Global Warming, extreme weather, coral bleaching.. hopefully we do not get to the death of microbes and planktons..
Here's a map and please note the scale now goes to 18 not 14 of a few years ago...
TEMIS -- Forecasts clear sky UV index and archives

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Actually, the jamming is done to true believers who have little actual knowledge behind the science pertaining to what they are posting, other than what they can glean from climate expert sites like Barton Levenson's, or the cartoonist who runs skepticalscience.com

Oh really.

If you search 'climate science', 'climate change', 'AGW', 'global warming' or any of the common subtopics or effects, the majority of hits are from the MANY, MANY denier and skeptic sites (and most rightwing sites and publications, as a professional courtesy) all repeating the same distorted and previously disproved 'factlets', and, where they bother to provide cites, based on the few cherry-picked datasets or papers from the handfull of dissenting specialists.

And all of this echoed and amplified by repeating that crap everywhere, even sailing forums.

Repetition makes right, I guess. Clearly the deniers are winning the internets. So it's amusing to have a denier accuse pro-AGW people (falsely) of only referencing a couple of 'front' sites, when ALL of the denier/skeptic arguments are cribbed ONLY from denier/skeptic websites. Because there's precious little in the peer-reviewed and published literature that poses any kind of genuine counter to the finding of AGW.

I guess if you want to deflect the fact that you are are part of the jamming, you accuse the other side of just that.

* * *

Want something new? Ach. SailOar beat me to it. Anyway, it's a present for the scientifically myopic who think there's no new science, unless some denier/skeptic site serves it up to them. With a twist, of course.

Here's another link from the American Geophysical Union who released the study (clearly just another part of the many-tentacled AGW conspiracy!), and a summary of the source paper, for the incredulous.

We'll understand if there's no immediate response to it. There will be a small delay while some semi-plausible rebuttal is formulated and disseminated through the anti-AGW blogosphere.

I guess in one way it's good that there's so many denier/skeptic sites out there. It increases the odds that the readers may actually encounter some science, even if it is skewed. Because, based on some shocking basic fails in the last few pages, the amount of real science grasped by "skeptics" continues to hover near zero.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=StuM;2108976]

Originally Posted by jackdale

On the first page the newest article is 2008. "We review the evidence that connects drought and desertification in the Sahel with climate change past, present and future. Advances in climate modeling point to the oceans, not land, as the cause of the recent persistence of drought in the Sahel."[/QUOTE]

So the models show drought in the Sahel while observations show greening.

Doesn't that tell you anything?

The models and the folks on the ground show drought while the satellites show greening.

Doesn't that tell you anything?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Two points.

1.Minor - You ignore the continuous adjustments of GISTEMP, HadCrut, RSS and pick on just UAH? Why is that.

2 Major Your "new science" references are both just fiddling with MODEL OUTPUTS.

"developed a method that consolidates climate models "
"formalized approaches to unifying numerical modelling"

No new data and no new scientific finding anywhere.

It's no more new science that John Cook doing a "cognitive psychological" reanalysis of Shakespeare's Tragedies would be; and probably less useful

Heck, I fiddle with numerical data all day when I am developing information systems, often in novel ways. I don't call it new science.

1) All temperature data sets are adjusted.

2) You really need to spend some time on "adjustments."

Because many folks have no clue about temperature adjustments. Judith Curry and Steve Mosher, both well-known skeptics, have commented on this. Curry asked Zeke Hausfather to post some commentary on her blog.

Judith Curry, a skeptic and one of Inhofe's favorites, has published three discussions of temperature adjustments.

"There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”."



Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/un...perature-data/

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/be...perature-data/

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/un...ervation-bias/

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

To which I would add a comment from Steve Mosher, the skeptic who published the Climategate letters.

Christopher Booker win’s the irony of the year award with his piece on adjustments to the temperature record. That’s quite a feat considering it’s only February. His complaint overlooks the clear historical fact that skeptics, above all others, have made the loudest case for the need to adjust the temperature series. Over the years, it’s been skeptics, who have made a vocal case for adjustments . More disturbing is the claim that these adjustments are somehow criminal. We dealt with these type of claims before and completely debunked them.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/

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

A denialist pointed me to this site.

Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data | Ars Technica

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh really.

If you search 'climate science', 'climate change', 'AGW', 'global warming' or any of the common subtopics or effects, the majority of hits are from the MANY, MANY denier and skeptic sites (and most rightwing sites and publications, as a professional courtesy) all repeating the same distorted and previously disproved 'factlets', and, where they bother to provide cites, based on the few cherry-picked datasets or papers from the handfull of dissenting specialists.

And all of this echoed and amplified by repeating that crap everywhere, even sailing forums.

Repetition makes right, I guess. Clearly the deniers are winning the internets. So it's amusing to have a denier accuse pro-AGW people (falsely) of only referencing a couple of 'front' sites, when ALL of the denier/skeptic arguments are cribbed ONLY from denier/skeptic websites. Because there's precious little in the peer-reviewed and published literature that poses any kind of genuine counter to the finding of AGW.

I guess if you want to deflect the fact that you are are part of the jamming, you accuse the other side of just that.

* * *

Want something new? Ach. SailOar beat me to it. Anyway, it's a present for the scientifically myopic who think there's no new science, unless some denier/skeptic site serves it up to them. With a twist, of course.

Here's another link from the American Geophysical Union who released the study (clearly just another part of the many-tentacled AGW conspiracy!), and a summary of the source paper, for the incredulous.

We'll understand if there's no immediate response to it. There will be a small delay while some semi-plausible rebuttal is formulated and disseminated through the anti-AGW blogosphere.

I guess in one way it's good that there's so many denier/skeptic sites out there. It increases the odds that the readers may actually encounter some science, even if it is skewed. Because, based on some shocking basic fails in the last few pages, the amount of real science grasped by "skeptics" continues to hover near zero.

Looks like you are still confused. You continue, as do all warmists, to conflate two completely separate issues. One issue is why the earth is warming. The other issue is what impacts warming may have.

Warmists want to argue that of course the warming we observe today is all due to human activity. That is a proposition that simple minds all seem to agree about, and the culprit has to be CO2. The problem is that the climate isn't simple, there are feedback mechanisms that are not well understood; the models based on climate sensitivity to CO2 are clearly wrong since they keep failing; prior warming periods have certainly existed without CO2 being involved; CO2 appears to be a consequence and not a cause of warming, etc. etc. etc.

In other words, whether current warming is unusual or not, or is caused by anything humans can do, or is mitigated by negative feedbacks is unknown but warmists want to pretend it is a given. Hence the insistence that "97% of scientists, blah blah blah", which is itself a crock.

So, warmists accept as a matter of religious faith that humans are ruining the planet because of CO2 even though that is hardly supported by the evidence.

Then, they point to all the bad things that are supposed to happen because of warming to justify carbon sequestration schemes even though those doomsday predictions are also failing but in any case would occur anyway if CO2 wasn't the culprit as it certainly does not appear to be.

So, if you want to pretend you are approaching this scientifically, perhaps start by answering Hans von Storch's puzzle - why models based on CO2 climate sensitivity have failed. You could win a Nobel. Or you, and Sailoar, can continue to cut and paste stuff from websites you hardly seem to understand and pretend your faith system is grounded in data, instead of your politics.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Nothing to do with the science. It just epitomizes your continual rejection of ANY good news regarding CO2/climate change etc.

I have said on more than one occasion that, without the CO2 in our atmosphere, the earth would be a ball of ice.

I also accept that the there is some CO2 fertilization. It is expected to be short-term and is not equally beneficial to all plants.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have said on more than one occasion that, without the CO2 in our atmosphere, the earth would be a ball of ice.



I also accept that the there is some CO2 fertilization. It is expected to be short-term and is not equally beneficial to all plants.

Is there any clear cut evidence for the "ball of ice" theory? It sounds pretty far fetched to my over simplified brain.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Is there any clear cut evidence for the "ball of ice" theory? It sounds pretty far fetched to my over simplified brain.

Yes, it is called the "greenhouse effect".

BTW - "greenhouse" is a metaphor. The atmosphere does not act like the glass in a greenhouse.

Earth is constantly bombarded with enormous amounts of radiation, primarily from the sun. This solar radiation strikes the Earth's atmosphere in the form of visible light, plus ultraviolet (UV), infrared (IR) and other types of radiation that are invisible to the human eye.

UV radiation has a shorter wavelength and a higher energy level than visible light, while IR radiation has a longer wavelength and a weaker energy level. About 30 percent of the radiation striking Earth's atmosphere is immediately reflected back out to space by clouds, ice, snow, sand and other reflective surfaces, according to NASA. The remaining 70 percent of incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the oceans, the land and the atmosphere. As they heat up, the oceans, land and atmosphere release heat in the form of IR thermal radiation, which passes out of the atmosphere and into space.

It's this equilibrium of incoming and outgoing radiation that makes the Earth habitable, with an average temperature of about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius), according to NASA. Without this atmospheric equilibrium, Earth would be as cold and lifeless as its moon, or as blazing hot as Venus. The moon, which has almost no atmosphere, is about minus 243 F (minus 153 C) on its dark side. Venus, on the other hand, has a very dense atmosphere that traps solar radiation; the average temperature on Venus is about 864 F (462 C).

What is the Greenhouse Effect? | Global Warming

[transmitterdan]

But what percentage of the heat lost to space by thermal radiation is blocked by the CO2 as a function of its density in PPM?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

But what percentage of the heat lost to space by thermal radiation is blocked by the CO2 as a function of its density in PPM?

Not sure what you are asking?

If heat is lost to space, it was not "blocked".

[Lake-Effect]

Going inline...

Originally Posted by Delfin

Looks like you are still confused. You continue, as do all warmists, to conflate two completely separate issues.

do I now...

Warmists want to argue that of course the warming we observe today is all due to human activity.

We do, do we? Wrong.

That is a proposition that simple minds all seem to agree about, and the culprit has to be CO2.

I have my own idea about where all the simple minds have gone to...

The models based on climate sensitivity to CO2 are clearly wrong since they keep failing;

...Wrong. They work pretty good so far. Always room for improvement.

CO2 appears to be a consequence and not a cause of warming,

...Wrong.

etc. etc. etc.

(guessing 2/3 wrong?)

... warmists want to pretend it is a given.

...Wrong. It is a given; even the more enlightened skeptics acknowledge some AGW from CO2.

Hence the insistence that "97% of scientists, blah blah blah", which is itself a crock.

Ok. You pick a number. It's probably something MUCH MUCH lower like... 85%? 91%?

So, warmists accept as a matter of religious faith that humans are ruining the planet because of CO2 even though that is hardly supported by the evidence.

This comment is inane because

1. It's not unreasonable to have some faith in the subject matter experts, and/or your government's assessment of the issue (depending where you call home)
   
2. It doesn't acknowledge that just about everyone including skeptics recognize that there is some warming due to CO2 buildup
   
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

...I'm going with #3


Then, they point to all the bad things that are supposed to happen because of warming to justify carbon sequestration schemes even though those doomsday predictions are also failing but in any case would occur anyway if CO2 wasn't the culprit as it certainly does not appear to be.

You can keep saying that, it's not getting any more true...

So, if you want to pretend you are approaching this scientifically, perhaps start by answering Hans von Storch's puzzle - why models based on CO2 climate sensitivity have failed. You could win a Nobel. Or you, and Sailoar, can continue to cut and paste stuff from websites you hardly seem to understand and pretend your faith system is grounded in data, instead of your politics.

Cutting and pasting would be a step up, in your case. Hey - in your own words why don't you describe Dr (?) Storch's puzzle and where you think the errors in the "consensus" findings are?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

But what percentage of the heat lost to space by thermal radiation is blocked by the CO2 as a function of its density in PPM?

This might help

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCA60WnoMk

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Newhaul claimed that the Sahel was greening; I showed that it is in a drought condition.

The article I posted was written BEFORE the start of the El Nino.

Go sailing for one day and dang get jumped for everything.
Jack you need to reread posts 3783, 3817, and 3821. I never said that the sahel was greening I just pointed out how out of date your drought data was on the subject