Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by 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.

Shorter ones such daily temperature are also cyclical.

Here is the instrumental record. It has some cycles with 5 year smoothing and the trend is up.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

You have said this repeatedly. Show me the science.

BTW - from Cowtan and Way

Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet's surface. The widely used Hadley Centre–Climatic Reseach Unit Version 4 (HadCRUT4) dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.

Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide results superior to excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.

Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s, which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997–1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....2297/abstract

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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.

OK How about a couple of alternatives:
1. Complete Hadcrut with 10 year moving average.

2. Your graph above with the linear trend replaced by a simple polynomial.

Which ones fits the data best?
How will they look if you extrapolate them forward?

[Kenomac]

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 just finished reading the 2013 National Geographic "we're all going to drown by rising sea levels" edition. The scientists... or rather conformists they cited in the article were predicting the seas rising at an alarming 1/8 inch per year, and showing New York city as it is today 1/3 submerged in seawater.

Do the math... It won't even be up to the present day piers for another 500 years! It'll take over 300 years just to climb up the height of a boat fender on one of the ferries.

Answer: No... definitely not.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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.

Warmer <> warming

The reason Mears complains is because he, you and and all the other alarmists, cannot understand how the graph is derived.

The start point is not cherry picked, it is the RESULT of a simple linear regression from the present to see how long you have to go back before you get a positive trend. It's simple Statistics 101. (which I accept is beyond most alarmists ability to comprehend, let alone calculate for themselves)

[Kenomac]

The same article in National Geographic provided this picture of what areas would flood in New York City following a massive Hurricane Sandy type storm hitting the city head on in the year 2100.

Doesn't quite look like something humanity can't deal with? Doesn't even look as bad as New Orleans. Or am I supposed to say... "Oh, the Horror... the Horror."

The sea level rising up about 11 inches if everything goes just perfect with the conformist's models and absolutely no pesky volcanos get in the way of the warming trend. And we know just how pesky those volcanoes can be?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
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.

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have said this repeatedly. Show me the science.

BTW - from Cowtan and Way



Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - 2014 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

Glad you asked. From Judith Curry's blog (which you say you follow). A bit dated, but probably still relevant to the "science" behind the modeling that is supposed to show increased warming in the troposphere. Note that this basic assumption is not challenged in the debate over how to explain why the sat data shows the opposite.

Tropospheric and surface temperatures
Posted on October 29, 2011 | 431 Comments
by Donald Rapp

Santer et al. (2005) emphasized that “a robust feature” of climate models is that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will amplify warming in the middle and upper tropical troposphere (compared to the surface). It was then with some consternation that they noted that the data do not support this prediction; indeed, surface warming typically exceeds tropospheric warming.

As Klotzbach et al. (2009) pointed out:

“Santer et al. (2005) presented three possible explanations for this divergence: (1) an artifact resulting from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radiosonde observations, (2) a real difference because of natural internal variability and/or external forcings, or (3) a portion of the difference is due to the spatial coverage differences between the satellite and surface temperature data.”

Evidently, the failure of data to support amplification of warming in the troposphere is a serious problem for the credibility of climate models and climate modelers would like to shift responsibility onto the data. Santer et al. focused on the second and third explanations, saying they were “more plausible” that “residual errors” occurred in some data sets, and they suggested that the data that do show increased temperature in the troposphere are more reliable than those measured by the UAH group (c.f. Christy et al., 2007). Klotzbach et al. (2009) presented considerable evidence that surface measurements over land often contain biases and effects due to their local surroundings. Indeed, one of the authors (Pielke Sr.) has written extensively on this subject. The nature of most of these biases is to increase measured surface temperatures. Thus Klotzbach et al. (2009) concluded that a significant factor in the discrepancy between climate models and measured temperature data may lie in the measured surface temperature data being too high.

(Emphasis mine). The article continues on & on, and seems to do a respectable job of presenting the back & forth b'twn. the opposing views. Perfect article for "quote-mining" which argument best explains the discrepancy b'twn. tropospheric & surface warming trends, but the point that is not disputed is that the modeling shows that the troposphere should have amplified warming compared to surface temps if MMGW and its greenhouse effect are in fact in play.

Tropospheric and surface temperatures | Climate Etc.

[Kenomac]

I'm still waiting for Jack and Lake-effect to locate the missing water? If sea levels are rising at an alarming rate as they claim, why is the shoreline in Newport Beach in exactly the same location in these two photos taken 75 years apart? One taken in 1940 and the other in 2015.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

... 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.

I skipped the last few recent pages of posts. Sorry if I missed anything important (ha!). But since you're referencing my last post Exile I thought I'd jump back in.

LE can certainly speak for himself, but you are correct; I am in the camp that says we must seriously disrupt out current economic and social system to address climate change. THAT is the reason the those who benefit from the status quo are fighting so hard to obfuscate the research, and sow doubt at the political level. Just like they did with tobacco research, they know that accepting what the science is telling us about climate change, and more importantly about our role in it, could (should) lead to serious disruptive change to our current systems and way of life -- most especially for those of us in the rich developed world.

It's kinda funny, but I suspect that most of the status-quo denier crowd actually understands this better than many of my climate change colleagues. I get frustrated with too many on the so-called "green" side who accept the science, but say we can continue to have it all; all we have to do is recycle better, put up more wind mills and turn down the thermostat. In many ways I think the deniers do see the real implications of accepting what science is telling us -- and they're scared, b/c they understand it means we all have to make real changes to our way of life.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

, but the point that is not disputed is that the modeling shows that the troposphere should have amplified warming compared to surface temps if MMGW and its greenhouse effect are in fact in play.

So should I ask JD yet again whether it is the models or the surface data with which he has problems?

(Not that I would expect an answer)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

So should I ask JD yet again whether it is the models or the surface data with which he has problems?

(Not that I would expect an answer)

You just did (ask again, that is)! You may have noticed from the Curry blog article that there's one camp that attempts to reconcile by disputing the sat data, another who defends the sat data by disputing the surface readings, and finally a few who try and make the case that there is in fact no discrepancy. Jack has always seemed committed to the surface modeling, but at the same time doesn't seem to dispute the sat data. But the UAH sat data now seems more convincing given that a separate entity (RSS) has produced similar results, and the atmospheric readings are also confirmed with weather balloons. But then the guy who came up with the RSS data program -- which closely tracks the UAH readings -- nevertheless believes the surface data system is more reliable! WHATEVER . . . the bottom line is that the discrepancy seems real and can't credibly be ignored.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

You may have noticed from the Curry blog article that there's one camp that attempts to reconcile by disputing the sat data, another who defends the sat data by disputing the surface readings, and finally a few who try and make the case that there is in fact no discrepancy.

You missed the group that says that the models are bad and the group that says that both the models and the surface data are bad.

Strange, but there seems to be one group missing. I am not aware of any group that says that both the models and the sat data are bad.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I skipped the last few recent pages of posts. Sorry if I missed anything important (ha!). But since you're referencing my last post Exile I thought I'd jump back in.

LE can certainly speak for himself, but you are correct; I am in the camp that says we must seriously disrupt out current economic and social system to address climate change. THAT is the reason the those who benefit from the status quo are fighting so hard to obfuscate the research, and sow doubt at the political level. Just like they did with tobacco research, they know that accepting what the science is telling us about climate change, and more importantly about our role in it, could (should) lead to serious disruptive change to our current systems and way of life -- most especially for those of us in the rich developed world.

It's kinda funny, but I suspect that most of the status-quo denier crowd actually understands this better than many of my climate change colleagues. I get frustrated with too many on the so-called "green" side who accept the science, but say we can continue to have it all; all we have to do is recycle better, put up more wind mills and turn down the thermostat. In many ways I think the deniers do see the real implications of accepting what science is telling us -- and they're scared, b/c they understand it means we all have to make real changes to our way of life.

I don't doubt the sincerity of your view that "we must seriously disrupt our current economic and social system to address climate change." But assuming, hypothetically, that the threat from MMGW turns out to be proven false, would you still hold the same position about needed changes to our socio-economic system? I think it's a valid question because CC seems to be embraced by many with a political perspective often similar to yours, and I suspect that's what drives much of the unquestioned acceptance of the science.

You are correct that there are powerful interests that will stand to lose should MMGW ultimately be proven and it induces societal change. But there are also many others who try and look at both sides of the evidence, and simply don't believe that the science is as settled as you do. And many of those same people recognize the negative impacts many of these changes would produce, not just on the big oil cos. or the rich & powerful, but on ordinary middle & lower class people throughout the world. My own view is that a real consensus around settled science should drive the politics and any needed reforms, not the other way around.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

You missed the group that says that the models are bad and the group that says that both the models and the surface data are bad.

Don't tell me, don't tell me, lemme guess . . . same group?

Strange, but there seems to be one group missing. I am not aware of any group that says that both the models and the sat data are bad.

Or a group that says both the models and the sat data are good, for that matter. Do you suppose that's why it's so often referred to as a "discrepancy?"

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's kinda funny, but I suspect that most of the status-quo denier crowd actually understands this better than many of my climate change colleagues. I get frustrated with too many on the so-called "green" side who accept the science, but say we can continue to have it all; all we have to do is recycle better, put up more wind mills and turn down the thermostat. In many ways I think the deniers do see the real implications of accepting what science is telling us -- and they're scared, b/c they understand it means we all have to make real changes to our way of life.

Aside from having absolutely no idea how a member of the denier crowd understands the problem (Hint: they may very well believe everything that you do except for the end of days apocalypse scenarios), I sure do hope you know how to make stone tools because in your Utopia, you're going to need them.