Dallas wrote: “That is the model data you linked to in degrees K. You converted that to anomaly and have zero close to 1880.”
No. For the model warming, I took the slope of the annual averages. (I’d be the same with anomalies w.r.t. any chosen baseline.) For the observations I took the slope of the anomalies, which is all we have.
Actually, CA “generated” $1,000,000,000 for “clean technology” via the carbon tax on transportation fuels since the inception of the tax in January 2015. The zeros are correct.
Approximately, delta_T = k*delta_C
where delta_C is the change in emissions over some time period, and delta_T is the change in temperature. k = 1.5 degC/trillion tons of carbon emitted, with 5-95 percentile limits 1.0 C/TtC and 2.1 C/TtC. See Matthews et al, Nature 2009 doi:10.1038/nature08047
This is appoximate, over only the long-term (where natural variability averages to zero).
David Appell, and how did you determine that slope?
PS: delta_C is change in *cumulative* emissions.
That’s not what climate models do. They *project* (they can’t “predict”) the temperature change between two equilibrium states…
I was actually just using the terminology from your original post, where you used “predict” instead of “project.” What did you mean by “a) why does a model have to predict periods of cooling?” You originally seemed to be questioning the need to be able to predict/project cooling but your later comment seems not to be entirely in agreement.
Let me rephrase my other question. If they said that they can make short-term projections and this claim was shown to be false, then why should we have confidence in the long-term projections?
Danny,
I second the well done. I came to the debate when I heard that it was already over and the science was settled. I first went to Real Climate and SkS. The attitudes there were so off-putting that I knew something was wrong. I started from the position that the planet was warming, that there was most likely human impact and that exploring potential outcomes was a worthwhile goal. That should be a starting point well suited to those concerned or alarmed about climate change to justify engagement. Instead there was lecturing and then negativity when I questioned what was being said. I have come to the conclusion that the issue of climate change is validation of my passion to interest students in science. My worry is that my efforts are akin to a fart in the wind when compared to the machine currently driving the debate on climate.
David,
I certainly do. But “Seriously” those were after all your words.
Anything on the financial disclosure article?
TimG56,
Many thanks. Sounds like our paths were similar.
W/R/T:”My worry is that my efforts are akin to a fart in the wind when compared to the machine currently driving the debate on climate.” Open minds and open eyes both directions are important so keep it up. Plus, there’s those butterfly wings and all, eh? :)
Rev,
How about the first step beyond?
Islands disappearing beneath the waves, tens of millions being displaced, wide spread expansion of tropical disease, increase in “extreme” weather events, our grandchildren never knowing what snow looks like?
All are claims which deserve at least some evidence in support. Otherwise they risk becoming focal points of scorn and derision.
JCH,
I don’t get into dueling graphs and I don’t talk about pauses or plateaus. I do point out the unarguable point of divergence.
Explain that. Or lose credibility.
Judith –
Just to help you clean up Springer’s mess, the following comment was posted under my name but I didn’t write it:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/31/criticism-tolerance-and-changing-your-mind/#comment-689653
Judith –
Just to help you clean up Springer’s mess, the following comment was posted under my name but I didn’t write it:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/31/criticism-tolerance-and-changing-your-mind/#comment-689654
Judith –
Just to help you clean up Springer’s mess, the following comment was posted under my name but I didn’t write it:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/31/criticism-tolerance-and-changing-your-mind/#comment-689656
Judith –
Just to help you clean up Springer’s mess, the following comment was posted under my name but I didn’t write it:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/31/criticism-tolerance-and-changing-your-mind/#comment-689672
Judith –
Just to help you clean up Springer’s mess, the following comment was posted under my name but I didn’t write it:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/31/criticism-tolerance-and-changing-your-mind/#comment-689652
Joseph,
Short answer is yes. Reference a Congressman from Arizona and a Twitter banning just this week.
slope via method of least squares
“If they said that they can make short-term projections and this claim was shown to be false, then why should we have confidence in the long-term projections?”
Because short-term projections depend on unforeseeable factors like volcanoes, solar intensity changes, ENSOs etc., and long-term projections depend on radiative balance and conservation of energy. (If heat keeps being added to a system, it will warm.)
Danny: You need to seriously expand your choice of reading material.
“Did you do the article with Dr. Curry’s responses to your questions w/r/t her financial disclosure?”
No, I didn’t see it.
