The stated goal is to stop the negative human influence on the climate.
Care to actually show where this is the stated goal? This doesn’t sound like any stated goal I’ve actually seen (well, apart from when someone is claiming it’s the stated goal).
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by ...and Then There's Physics
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by mosomoso
Manipulating climate looks like a bit of a job. No wonder they want a “climate war” to do it. But I wonder how well that might work. When someone went seeding the Pacific with paltry amounts of iron in 2009, at that very same time El Nino did its thing and lifted millions of tons of iron-rich Australian dust and dumped it in the ocean for free. Did those climate warriors even notice? Or wasn’t it part of their climate war mission?
I was only reading yesterday about Roman port infrastructure near Antium which is now well inland. Of course, it’s not the only example of such changes, and the changes can be both ways due to subsidence, erosion, siltation etc. Not always a matter of a simple sea level rise or fall, but evidence of higher sea levels in pretty recent millennia is hard to dodge.
I’m assuming those Romans weren’t so silly as to build ports inland, and they must have had a reason to move Ostia three times to higher ground.
Where’s tonyb? I must ask him about that. (Hope it won’t make anybody hot under the collar.)
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
ATTP- “Someday, our children, and our children’s children, will look at us in the eye and they’ll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safe, more stable world?” – President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013″
Looks like the US President seeks to stop the negative impacts doesn’t he??? Try using your sense and not playing word games. Do you claim there is a desire to want to stop net beneficial impacts?
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Joseph
AK, WG2 is the one that looks into impacts. Why would I need to go to WG1?
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Joseph
but they also should not be considered reliable assessments unless or until there is additional observed evidence to confirm the theorized result.
Again that is going to be hard since most severe impact are supposed to occur in the future. So I guess you won’t ever be satisfied.
↧
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt
@PA: The rate of atmospheric increase was about 1.7 PPM/Y in the 1978-1983 period. This year the rate of increase is on track to be the same 2.13 PPM/Y as last year. … The IPCC so far has been right about the emissions but wrong about the results. The IPCC projections for atmospheric CO2 and forcing, have an increasing trends after 2020. This would mean the IPCC projections are fixin’ to get wronger a lot faster.
The annual rate of increase of CO2 is far too noisy for any one year to be meaningful:
Even averaged over a decade (the five horizontal black lines) it’s still too noisy to draw reliable conclusions about a single decade. If in 2000 you’d compared the average of 1.50 ppmv increase per year for the 10 years 1990-1999 with that of 1.61 for 1980-1989 you’d have breathed a big sigh of relief and declared that the increase per year was at last decreasing based on the ten-year averages. But 2010 would have proved you badly wrong by jumping to 1.96 for 2000-2009!
The average for the five years 2010-2014 is 2.22. In order for this decade not to show an increase over 2000-2009’s 1.96, the next five years will need to average 1.70. But if your “on-track” expectation of 2.13 for 2015 pans out then 2016-2019 will need to average 1.59. What are the odds?
The eye can get a clearer picture of the long-term trends by looking not at the annual differences but the data itself:
Hold a straightedge to any 5-year part of that plot and you’ll see that the whole curve is concave upwards (positive second derivative). No sign of it bending down.
So what’s all this doing to the temperature? Well, since 2000 temperature has been rising at only 0.78 °C/century. For the 15 years starting in 1980 it rose at the higher rate of 1.00 °C/century, so certainly we’ve had a hiatus of sorts. But if you’re serious about the rate of increase of CO2 being meaningful, 1990 witnessed CO2’s little hiatus when the average for 1980-1989 declined to 1.50 ppmv/yr from the previous decade’s rate of increase of 1.61 ppm/yr. Hiatuses (hiati?) happen (though hardly as often as hurricanes).
And if you’re going to look at just recent years, as you’re doing with CO2, then the trend since 2011 is a truly remarkable 5.74 °C/century!
Not to worry. The hiatus will be back for the period 2022-2032, just at a much higher temperature.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by beththeserf
‘ Hansen warned that the rise in sea levels was evidence
that humans were causing global climate instability.’
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5794
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by micro6500
And if you’re going to look at just recent years, as you’re doing with CO2, then the trend since 2011 is a truly remarkable 5.74 °C/century!
But, none of the temperature increase is due to a “residual” warming after it cools at night, nor is it from a “residual” warming at the end of the year.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by mosomoso
I wonder which is harder: getting a ship to where Mawson anchored or getting a canoe to Ephesus. Seems there are the theories about ice and sea levels…then there are actual ice and sea levels. Never the twain etc.
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by AK
@Joseph...<blockquote>AK, WG2 is the one that looks into impacts. Why would I need to go to WG1?</blockquote>Because it's WG1 that looks into the “<i>scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.</i>” That would include projections of “<i>any increase in extreme weather tied to an increase in CO2 levels.</i>” From the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml" rel="nofollow">IPCC Organizational Structure</a>:<blockquote>The IPCC Working Group I (WG I) assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. The main topics assessed by WG I include: changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere; observed changes in air, land and ocean temperatures, rainfall, glaciers and ice sheets, oceans and sea level; historical and paleoclimatic perspective on climate change; biogeochemistry, carbon cycle, gases and aerosols; satellite data and other data; climate models; <b>climate projections,</b> causes and attribution of climate change. [my bold]</blockquote>WG2, OTOH, looks into <b>vulnerability;</b><blockquote>The IPCC Working Group II (WG II) assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it. It also takes into consideration the inter-relationship between vulnerability, adaptation and sustainable development. The assessed information is considered by sectors (water resources; ecosystems; food & forests; coastal systems; industry; human health) and regions (Africa; Asia; Australia & New Zealand; Europe; Latin America; North America; Polar Regions; Small Islands).</blockquote>
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Don Monfort
We have been waiting for you to come along and tell us what the stated goal is, kenny. But you just tease. Won’t you let us in on it, kenny? Please.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend | What Did You Say?
[…] data that didn’t fit with the global warming narrative. “My bottom line assessment is this,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. “I think that uncertainties in global […]
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by beththeserf
Lucia on Marotzke and Forster claim that the models
do not overesimate sclimate sensitivity to radiative
forcings from increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/how-to-obscure-by-reducing-power-of-a-test-marotzke-and-forster/
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by ...and Then There's Physics
Rob,
Looks like the US President seeks to stop the negative impacts doesn’t he??? Try using your sense and not playing word games. Do you claim there is a desire to want to stop net beneficial impacts?
No, I’m trying to point out that the real issue is whether or not we want to risk the possibility of severe negative impacts. Absent technologies/advancements that can remove GHGs from the atmosphere, it is irreversible on human timescales. Is it worth risking finding out whether the net effect is overall negative, or positive?
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend | outlawpatriotnews
[…] bottom line assessment is this,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. “I think that uncertainties in global […]
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Climatism
Reblogged this on <a href="https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/state-of-the-climate-debate-in-the-u-s/" rel="nofollow">Climatism</a> and commented:
Excellent and measured summary of the current political, economic and scientific state of the climate.
A must read for those interested in sifting through the increased climate alarmism and political rhetoric associated with the lead up to the next United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 or CMP11 (or gabfest) held in Paris, in November/December 2015
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt
@RS: Without even reasonably reliable information that future conditions are worsening due to higher levels of CO2,
Yes, of course, Rob. That’s the belief that puts you in camp A, as I was explaining. Very predictable.
@DM: We are more interested in hearing about your epic Woods debunking project, doc.
Looks like Don at least got the point, as he’s switched the subject to his (very predictable) default topic. Keep working on convincing me it’s epic, Don, and maybe I’ll put it on the front burner. ;)
@DM: You wouldn’t have those problems in Oz, if you drove on the proper side of the road.
Been there, done that, Don, 1100 km just last month in fact. Drove from Sydney to Towamba (south of Bega) to visit a cousin I hadn’t seen for 40 years. Took a whale-watching cruise on Jervis Bay on the way down, very beautiful bay.
The incident with the overtaking truckie happened around 1965 while driving from Sydney to Surfer’s. I was going 90 (145 kph) at the time, perfectly legal back then. My reflexes not being what they were 50 years ago (funny how that happens), I was grateful for today’s 80-100 kph limits most of the trip down to Towamba, especially at night.
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Don Monfort
“Is it worth risking finding out whether the net effect is overall negative, or positive?”
You are not up to speed, kenny. That ain’t the stated goal. That isn’t even close to being the issue, according to the consensus climate change dogma. I will help you. Your crowd is hollering that CAGW is a done deal, unless we change our evil ways. They are running around like Chicken Littles screaming that it’s already happening. You must have missed it, when they sent out the “debate is over” memo.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Joseph
then assert that the worst case will happen.
If by “warmer” you mean scientists, every study I have seen discusses risks and range of outcomes with various probabilities.
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
Don’t call me Shirley!
Here’s a suggestion : Tell Elon Musk he needs to find some real engineers to help him out.
“SpaceX has failed to land a reusable rocket booster back on to its platform barge in the Atlantic, its third failed landing in as many attempts . . . ”
Maybe he’s employing non physics based scientists – maybe climate scientists? – what do you think?
Maybe you could have looked into the future for him, and told him he was going to fail. I believe he’s a billionaire, and would no doubt have paid you handsomely. Surely he has your phone number? Why didn’t he ask you to tell him what to do?
You seem exceptionally qualified in this area.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
