tonyb: I am baffled as to how difficult it seems to be to get a straight answer to a straight question.
Yes, you are baffled. The fact is, there is no “straight” answer. As I put it above, there is no answer that is technically accurate and intuitively clear.
“dry areas get dryer and wet areas get wetter” is simply nonsense. If you intensify the hydrologic cycle due to warming, the distribution of the extra rain is nonobvious especially since small increases in absolute rainfall in dry areas would be large % increases (bigger relative effects). The IPCC has been unable to support this claim, such as in the SREX report of 2011.
Compare and contrast:
Finally, my thanks to you, Zeke, Robert, and the other members of the Berkeley Earth team for all of your work. I may disagree with parts of it, but I certainly respect and applaud the effort that has gone into it.
and
You’re likely right, mpaul. But the arrogance of Muller and his merry men knows no bounds. He got Anthony to lend him his Surfacestation data, and then broke a confidentiality agreement to traduce Anthony’s work in front of Congress, of all places. He knew it would get maximum media exposure there …
He also promised the most transparent, ethical, straightforward, purely scientific effort yet … then he goes and engages in shameless self-promotion prior to his work even passing peer review.
Me, I’ve had it up to here with being lied to by Muller, I’m fed up to my eye-teeth with his tricks and his whoring for the media. Sure, I could pretend Muller is an honest and honorable man like you recommend. But his actions have shown him to be a cunning snake. It is not my habit to address snakes as though they were honorable men.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/what-the-best-data-actually-says/#comment-776890
Oh. But wait. In calling Muller a liar, a trickster, a “whore,” a dishonorable man, and a snake, Willis wasn’t suggesting that he doesn’t respect Muller’s work and applaud his effort.
Note, however, that none of these are “ad hominems”, as I make no claim that Muller being a snake has affected his mathematics or altered his results in the slightest. The data is the data, it says what it says despite Muller’s reptilian ways. I am not arguing against the data, there is no ad-hominem.
OK. That makes sense.
Joshua.
The problem is if I drop it too much then I will disappear the LIA.
So..If I made all of Doc’s changes, Willis’s changes, Carricks ideas, Brandons ideas, AC Osborne, TonyB.. if I did all that and the temps went up.. I’d been hosed. It would be like the time JeffId and RomanM did a temperature series and it came out warmer.
If it went down a little, They would say.. so you were wrong before… maybe you are still wrong.. more cooling dammit!
And brandon and carrick would complain that the cooling was now not smooth enough.. or too smooth.. because georgia peaches.
If it went down a lot, they would complain that I’m destroying their argument that we are coming out of an LIA.. or by cooling it I was erasing the effect of the grand solar maximum.
Lets see.
Take two periods: 1750-1780 and 1984-2014
Raw; says the difference is about 1.2C
Adjusted says the difference is about 1.35C
Clearly cooling it to 1.2C is not enough for them. any amount of warming more than 1.2C is a fraud.
I just want some clear direction. How much lower do I have to go before it’s not the biggest scandal of all time.
Drought in the Southwest is governed by the PDO (I have several refs on this) which the models can’t emulate. Since there is currently a drought there, it seems like a win to claim that is what will continue or what is predicted by the models. In addition, the ability of GCMs to model regional precipitation is awful to abysmal.
Tony its in moderation.
Danny Thomas,
I lack first and even second hand knowledge of the GCM runs for IPCC, but it appears that the common currency is the ‘mult-model mean’. The rationale appears to be that, no, gcms can’t predict the given weather of a future time, but it doesn’t matter because weather fluctuations ‘average out’ over time.
This makes any pronouncements about precipitation and drought even more of a curiosity because precipitation events are discrete based on the unpredictable weather.
Mosh
Thanks. Look forward to reading it. It does no one any favours if a false sceptical claim is made.
if you can demonstrate in a clear fashion that they have got it wrong I will tell them so. At the present time I have no idea if the cooling claim was right or wrong.
Tonyb
> WTF?
That’s 1:
(2014-1984) period – (1780-1750) period
That is taking the first 30 years and the last 30 years.
Difference between raw and adjusted is around .15C
26 decades: .15C
around .005C per decade.
your figure of .05C would disappear the LIA.
That is today would be as cool as the LIA
Those include energy efficiency regulations such as fuel efficiency standards in the US.
Wrong. we dropped all urban stations and got the same answer
Oh no, anything but that …
==> “The problem is if I drop it too much then I will disappear the LIA.”
Yeah. Ok. Didn’t think of that.
TonyB,
Appreciate the background. I’ve read the SPM’s and felt myself that looking behind that to the foundation leads to the IPCC report which leads to……………well you know. So I’m trying to focus on the science but found this article interesting in that much like that which lead to the BEST Post/debate this seems to be a response to the criticism of expense and CO2 generation to attend conferences.
The ever broadening conversation leads to small ephiphanies for me so either I’m learning or getting sucked in. Cannot quite tell which. What I do see, is that if one isn’t skeptical of the broad conversation (man causes environmental issues {duh} then what to do about them) one seems to me to not be looking. I can accept bits and pieces, but many others I just don’t get.
When I received this yesterday:”Without doubt the world economy needs restructuring.” my eyes opened wide. The balance for context:
“Without doubt the world economy needs restructuring. There is massive inequality and we’re hammering the environment in numerous ways, climate is just one, but all of which will impact on our ability to grow or obtain food. We can survive without mass transportation if we have to, but food is the primary need of everyone, and it’s what the poorest people care most about. Even where fossil fuels have increased food production, it is often at the cost of poor people having to pay someone for fertiizers, pesticides, etc. In any case, any sensible plan to cut global emissions would demand big cuts from richer countries while the poorest would be gently incentivised to reduce and eventually halt emission growth, ideally via shared technology. Solar power is arguably the most redistributive form of energy, as the poorest countries mostly get the most sun, and there’s potential for every house to have simple solar panels to people who never had it before can get electricity, for no more than a one-off payment that a charity might well help with.
It may not be straightforward getting there, but the point is, cutting carbon emissions doesn’t have to harm the poorest at all, whereas mitigating climate change will certainly help them”
Nail on the head, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Mosh
In 1939 Matthes termed the last 4000 years as ‘the little ice age’. In that context there were two hundred years around 1650 When the temperature was often cold and glaciation was the greatest in that 4000 year period.
However, many parts of the LIA -in the popular sense of that term 1300 to 1870 or so -was as warm as today. Can we definitively say we have climbed out of the lia type events of considerable temperature oscillations? We would need another fifty years to know that.
Tonyb
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
“Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect”
think we have seen all the warming we will ever see from co2 already. if it actually does what they say.
EdG,
Just for expansion: ““Our decision reflects our long-held position that customers should not be forced to pay enormous above-market charges for electricity, as the project is now seeking.” http://fortune.com/2015/02/06/as-the-feds-pull-out-dreams-of-clean-coal-fade/
Now the question becomes what will cost more, not using coal?
