Jim D
Read more about what GCM’s have been designed to simulate and then read about have well they have performed in accurately forecasting future conditions. They are designed to be able to simulate more than temperature.
Jim–Warming does NOT equal a worse climate for humanity overall. That is only true in the beliefs of zealots.
Joseph asks–“So are you saying that scientists are making claims that climate change has negative risks based on no evidence?”
My answer- NO I did not say or write that. I have written that there is no reliable data to support the claims that higher CO2 levels WILL result in a worse climate. I do not have reliable data to show that the climate will be better either.
During the last severe drought phase (which bore a striking resemblance to other severe drought phases, but sssh) experts like Flannery and David Jones of the BoM claimed it was never going to rain adequately again. Green/Labor premiers didn’t like the idea of scaring voters with recycled water so they opted for the most stupendously expensive and carbon intensive solution possible for eastern state capitals – of course! NSW’s premier Carr, a very green and urban fellow with a delicious collection of outdoor clothing and a penchant for declaring any old bit of ex-forestry scrub a National Park, promised that the whole thing would run on solar or sustainable whatever. (Ha, ha…he got us again!)
Now, Sydney’s driest year was in 1888 and NSW was driest in 1902. I mean, we’re a pretty humid part of the world with good rainfall this side of the Great Divide. Can you guess what happened?
Justin, I’ll leave you to guess!
Melbourne’s desal was actually delayed by the constant rain (which flowed uselessly out to sea instead of filling the proposed Mitchell River Dam which got unproposed because there would be no more proper floods according to Flannery.)
Sydney’s unused desal probably costs 600 thousand dollars PER DAY by now. I’m sure Qld and Melbourne are competitive with the costs of their unused or underused desals – I can’t bear to look.
Of course, I have to be making all this up. Waste and bungling on such a scale by climate and government authorities could never go under-reported by the MSM. Over half a million a day for an unused desal? No way that can be real.
facts dont speak for themselves.
take RSS and UAH. They don’t say “pause”
The only way you get a pause from those facts is by making decisions about what data model ( think linear fit ) to apply to the facts
And in reality RSS and UAH are not facts.
They are highly processed data products.
The FACTS are the sensor voltage.
In between the sensor voltage and the estimate of temperature is a whole series of decisions, assumptions, regressions, corrections, theory.
Look at the chain of customer between a voltage recorded at the sensor an the production of an anomaly value. you cant even FIND the real facts.
yes pressure determines temperature. its not the radiation .thats why temperature doesnt change when the sun goes down
or clouds pass over.
Its why a cloudy night sky is the same temperature as a clear night sky.
wisdom of crowds beats dyson
And here’s NASA ignoring the consensus of numerous scientific committees.
The very popular NASA site called “Global Climate Change, the fourth section is titled, “Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming;”
here: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#footnote_1
At the top of the above referenced web page, it is stated:
—
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
—
In question: the time frame, “trends over the past century.”
Generally speaking, the consensus among the warmists (IPCC summary included) to be that it is not until around the middle of the 20th Century – 1950 is often referenced (several, many decades later) – that AGW comes into play. It is not widely believed that until this time CO2 had not yet risen to a level where their might be any potentially observational evidence of a human foot (from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) to be present on global temperature.
In fact – among the various scientific orgs touted on the web page (w/ more referenced in the footnotes), I find very consistent views on the timeline:
—
EXCERPTS:
” . . on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.” [ 2013-50 =’s 1963]
” . .that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”
” It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities .”
“The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced . .”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century . .”
“Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)” – GSA
“It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” Joint Science Academies Statement.
“The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.” From Executive Summary “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) – U.S. Global Change Research Program.
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[12] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
I’d suggest that at a minimum the summary regarding consensus on the “birth of AGW,” be changed to match your own expert witnesses, i.e., ‘somewhere between the middle of the 20th Century to the late 1970’s.’
—
NASA – making it up as they go.
Lest us not forget the Global Temperature anomaly graphic on the top of the page shows a clear global cooling cycle from about the 1940’s through the late 1970’s. It should be a bit awkward to sell the view that man’s footprint on GW occurred just as the Earth was getting serious – for 3-4 decades – about global cooling.
I like camels.
They are great in hot desert climates and can run fast as shown in the Saudi Arabia annual races.
Committees are neither bad nor good. Have to look at the underlying observations. Too bad that APS threw Dr Steve Koonin off the review before they could publish a set of findings from the presentations by Curry, Christy, Held, Santor and Lindsen. The open testimony was interesting and enlightening and could have led to a useful statement before the powers panicked and threw the scientific leader off the team.
Scott
Justin I should add that Sydney’s total dam levels in this withering El Nino are now at 96.7%, but with the rain falling again that might get nudged up overnight. Really, there’s too much water.
Of course, in the age of Big Green, nothing has been done to improve capacity or introduce comprehensive recycling of water for future droughts. Conservation is so last century!
The coal power which fuels the unused desal has not been modernised, though Sydney’s back yard is full of the finest Permian black, centuries of supply. Don’t know what rust and disuse are doing to the desal. Don’t want to know. Can’t bear to know.
Faith without works. We’re green and forgiven!
The comments over at Physics Today are worth a gander. It does not look like a 97% consensus for alarmism to me. A lot of people get it.
Mosomoso,
“NSW’s premier Carr, a very green and urban fellow with a delicious collection of outdoor clothing and a penchant for declaring any old bit of ex-forestry scrub a National Park, promised that the whole thing would run on solar or sustainable whatever. (Ha, ha…he got us again!)”
Yeah, that thermodynamics thingy is tricky, energy density and all that, but you can’t really discuss religion in polite company.
“Can you guess what happened?”
Uuuhhhh, lessee…it rained cats and dogs? The Holy Hydrological Cycle fools the high priests of Gaia…again! Consider the meaning of the verb “to fool”.
GaryH,
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human
activities. ”
I suppose they consider Cook et al to be a scientific study…blind but not double-blind…
You mean, mob?
It would appear that way; however, I’d note – how many of the abstracts that Cook look at, actually took a position in regards to NASA’s fabricated timeline of, “over the past century?”
Any?
mosomoso
People don’t appreciate that water often appears to fall in cycles with prolonged decadal or longer dryish or wettish periods
We had a small river running through our garden which regularly dried up for a few weeks in the summer. it did so three years in a row, for most of the summer with a limited flow in between.
‘Climate change!’ the Environment Agency said. ‘It will now forever be a dry river.’
‘Not so,’ I said ‘get on and dredge it as there are trees growing in little islands and the whole thing is clogged up.’
‘No need ,climate change’ they nodded wisely.
I showed them the book from 1900 which detailed the periods of flood and drought throughout the previous hundred years but they were having none of it.
I don’t need to tell you what happened when the next wet cycle arrived and the water in the river had nowhere to go as it was impeded by trees on small islands…
tonyb
Desalination plants come in handy, especially in the next drought.
Did they mothball it so it can restart?
New carbon nanotube osmosis cartridges and developments can cut the energy requirements by up to a factor of 10. Better than killing all the fish at dams to accept what we have built to date and work an alternate ways of responding to inevitable droughts.
Water running uselessly to the sea is of the same value judgment as using every part of the slaughtered whale except call. Some like whales to be in the sea even though we only interact on TV with nature shows.
We have lots of dams and collect lots of water.
Scott
“The seat-of-the-pants guesses that scientists started with in the 1960s turned out to be roughly correct” – they predicted a catastrophic cooling then.
a LGBTQ camel… and, there’s nothing wrong with that.
scotts4sf: It will be easy to retrofit the desalination plants with a new technology. The walls – the most expensive part of the plant – will be reused completely.
