Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Right. Just like you initially linked to his site & methodology months ago, and probably on other forum threads as well. There's probably 20+ pages on debunking this "consensus" issue for anyone curious out there to go back and read. But much more efficient to just Google it and anyone can grasp the outlines of the controversy in 10 minutes.

"Google It" = the epitome of intellectual laziness.

Your assertion requires your evidence. Prove Powell wrong. I am not asking you to prove Doran and Zimmerman wrong, or Anderegg et al wrong, or Oreskes et al wrong.

Just prove Powell is wrong.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

All very interesting but I see we're starting from the beginning of the thread again. I especially like the first one you cite that the models correctly predicted:

"That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool."

All well & good, but unfortunately, the models failed to predict that the troposphere would warm far less than the models predicted, as recorded by the satellites. And the temps recorded by land/sea stations just "happened" to initially line up with these same cooler sat temps. Until the surface temps were "adjusted" upwards to match the modeling, that is. So before the "adjustments" were made, the satellite and surface temps lined up fairly close, with both sets of data showing far less warming than what was predicted by the modeling, i.e. far less than what was being propagated by the pro-MMGW crowd, scientists, laymen, and politicians alike.

Does anyone else find this more than a bit curious?

This is also curious - satellite data from RSS





RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser

BTW also from RSS

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

Please read all of it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I have read many critiques for each methodology. Just pick one, and inform us why the surface data and modeling can be definitively relied on over the sat data. I promise, I'll "listen."

Let's ask a keeper of satelitte data:

As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors.

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

This is not the first time I have posted this article for you to read.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

"Google It" = the epitome of intellectual laziness.

Your assertion requires your evidence. Prove Powell wrong. I am not asking you to prove Doran and Zimmerman wrong, or Anderegg et al wrong, or Oreskes et al wrong.

Just prove Powell is wrong.

Sorry, but I'm not going to regurgitate a lengthy thread discussion that's already taken place. The analysis of the "consensus" was earlier thrashed about for weeks, and appears in countless articles, journals, congressional testimony, and in Cook's now notorious Skeptical Science website. If this is your way of keeping the one-sided propaganda flowing, then count me out.

If you can't get anyone to play, then why don't you just honestly present the debunking the "consensus" has endured and explain why it still survives? Far more convincing to skeptics like me than only presenting one side as if it's gospel, only to discover that it's not. That would amount to an exercise in genuine critical thinking, btw.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let's ask a keeper of satelitte data:



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

This is not the first time I have posted this article for you to read.

OK, more homework. Tomorrow please, it's getting late. A little analysis to accompany your links would help, btw. Otherwise it's not always clear what you are trying to get across.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, more homework. Tomorrow please, it's getting late. A little analysis to accompany your links would help, btw. Otherwise it's not always clear what you are trying to get across.

I gave you the relevant paragraph.

BTW I use ALL temperature datasets, recognizing the issues with all of them.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sorry, but I'm not going to regurgitate a lengthy thread discussion that's already taken place. The analysis of the "consensus" was earlier thrashed about for weeks, and appears in countless articles, journals, congressional testimony, and in Cook's now notorious Skeptical Science website. If this is your way of keeping the one-sided propaganda flowing, then count me out.

If you can't get anyone to play, then why don't you just honestly present the debunking the "consensus" has endured and explain why it still survives? Far more convincing to skeptics like me than only presenting one side as if it's gospel, only to discover that it's not. That would amount to an exercise in genuine critical thinking, btw.

Name one science academy on the planet that disputes conclusions of the IPCC. Just one will do.

I do not know what you do for a living, but I suspect what ever you has protocols based on the consensus of best practice.

I teach sailing for four different organizations. Aside from a few differences there is a strong consensus about what is best practice.

Your religious connotations are curious as many of the skeptics come from religious, especially Dominionist and end-timer, backgrounds; Christy is an ordained First Baptist Minister (his first profession), Spencer is an avowed creationist and an active member of the Cornwall Alliance. On the political side, Inhofe is notorious for quoting scripture, Palin is an end-timer. Perry and Bachmann are strong Dominionists.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sorry, but I'm not going to regurgitate a lengthy thread discussion that's already taken place. The analysis of the "consensus" was earlier thrashed about for weeks, and appears in countless articles, journals, congressional testimony, and in Cook's now notorious Skeptical Science website. If this is your way of keeping the one-sided propaganda flowing, then count me out.

If you can't get anyone to play, then why don't you just honestly present the debunking the "consensus" has endured and explain why it still survives? Far more convincing to skeptics like me than only presenting one side as if it's gospel, only to discover that it's not. That would amount to an exercise in genuine critical thinking, btw.

Why do you mention Cook? It clear you have not read Powell, he is highly critical of Cook.

Spend 26 minutes here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN...wvzVr&index=11

The National Research Council is pleased to present this video that explains how scientists have arrived at the current state of knowledge about recent climate change and its causes.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I gave you the relevant paragraph.

BTW I use ALL temperature datasets, recognizing the issues with all of them.

Then why haven't you told us what you think about the UAH data, other than insinuations about Christy & Spencer's religious faith? That one's also old news, and it violates L-E's rule about sticking to the science. I only see RSS referred to. I'll read the article tomorrow but vaguely recall that the scientist in charge of RSS didn't think much of the dataset he created. But isn't the RSS data close to the UAH data?

Again, the issue -- for me anyway but not necessarily others -- is whether the UAH and/or RSS sat data credibly shows a much slower rate of warming than the adjusted surface data and the modeling. Not necessarily that it proves a slower rate of warming, but that it credibly demonstrates it. Nobody disputes Christy & Spencer's creds, and unless there's evidence that their faith has skewered their science, your insinuations aren't persuasive. Besides, I recall reading that the satellites are the only dataset that is confirmed through indpt. means, namely the balloons (or whatever they're called).

Is this a hard question? Am I asking it wrong? Am I assuming facts not yet established by science? If so, then tell me that too. Otherwise, your non-responsiveness to specifically the UAH data issue that was bandied about for so long suggests to me that it's a problem for your position that MMGW has been definitively proven and the case is closed.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Then why haven't you told us what you think about the UAH data, other than insinuations about Christy & Spencer's religious faith? That one's also old news, and it violates L-E's rule about sticking to the science. I only see RSS referred to. I'll read the article tomorrow but vaguely recall that the scientist in charge of RSS didn't think much of the dataset he created. But isn't the RSS data close to the UAH data?

Again, the issue -- for me anyway but not necessarily others -- is whether the UAH and/or RSS sat data credibly shows a much slower rate of warming than the adjusted surface data and the modeling. Not necessarily that it proves a slower rate of warming, but that it credibly demonstrates it. Nobody disputes Christy & Spencer's creds, and unless there's evidence that their faith has skewered their science, your insinuations aren't persuasive. Besides, I recall reading that the satellites are the only dataset that is confirmed through indpt. means, namely the balloons (or whatever they're called).

Is this a hard question? Am I asking it wrong? Am I assuming facts not yet established by science? If so, then tell me that too. Otherwise, your non-responsiveness to specifically the UAH data issue that was bandied about for so long suggests to me that it's a problem for your position that MMGW has been definitively proven and the case is closed.

I have used UAH data; I have no problems with it. It shows warming.




I agree with Spencer on many things: his 10 worst deniers' arguments, his disdain for the sky dragon slayers at PSI.

He is signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming which uses the term "deny" five times.

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

With that I disagree.

Either he lives his faith or he does not.

[jackdale]

Do not forget the 70% of the goble not measured by surface stations or by satellites

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

It takes a lot of energy to heat up water.

BTW - That is Mears' conclusion as well.

My view is that the subduction of heat into the ocean is very likely a significant part of the explanation for the model/observation discrepancies. What is less clear is whether or not this subduction is due to random fluctuations in the climate, or some sort of response to anthropogenic forcing. An important question is now ‘how long will the enhanced trade winds continue?’. The trade wind anomaly lessened during 2013, but we do not know whether this change will persist over the next few years and lead a positive phase of the IPO, or if the IPO will take longer to flip to its other phase.

I’ll conclude by reiterating that I do not expect that the hiatus and model/observation discrepancies are due to a single cause. It is far more likely that they are caused by a combination of factors. Publications, blog posts and media stories that try to pin all the blame on one factor should be viewed with some level of suspicion, whether they are written by climate scientists, journalists, or climate change denialists.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

"Google It" = the epitome of intellectual laziness.

Yeah. So much more rigorous to both Google and then link...and link...and link...

[sailorboy1]

It's on a sailing forum. it must be right!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Then why haven't you told us what you think about the UAH data, other than insinuations about Christy & Spencer's religious faith? That one's also old news, and it violates L-E's rule about sticking to the science.

Yes - I still think that science should be judged solely on its own merits - but I gotta say that anyone who's signed on to:

We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.

... has questionable objectivity, don't you agree? "We deny..." (not even "we seriously doubt", or " it doesn't seem likely or feasible") so let's not even try. Not very science-y.

This idiotic declaration WILL be proven wrong, sooner or later, simply because we will run out of fossil fuels... unless they figure they will be Raptured or something before it comes to pass.

Wow.

I'm not as well-read as Jack on the specifics, but I think that the amount of heat taken in by the oceans hasn't yet been fully appreciated.

[Kenomac]

April 4th in New England, Spring has arrived! We received 4 inches of snow today added to three inches yesterday, or was it the day before? Forecast calls for -11C tomorrow (22F) with a high of 35F.

Don't tell the GW zealots, they'll be so upset. May even resort to omitting these figures on future data and graphs.

Or.... is this to be considered weather and not climate?

Had some fun on the Bobcat today, and look forward to some global warming down in Mexico later in the week.