Joseph: “I don’t think Dr. Curry is in a position to decide in either case by herself.”
Good thing she agrees with you, and because she feels the same she references folks like Robert Merton who she feels have developed some pretty reasonable standards. If you can’t agree that this is a good yardstick then please propose your own. I think it’s time we returned to measuring things against a standard, rather than blathering on about not having one.
Matthew (and others)
it is worth bookmarking Noaa’s climate reconstruction database
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/climate-reconstruction
It is also worth bookmarking the series of 12 posts on tree ring paleo
by Jim Bouldin
This goes back to my original comment. Why is it thought that trees are a useful temperature proxy?
I don’t think they are at all. Precipitation perhaps but temperature? No. Are boreholes better as they show a different result in direction of travel of temperature over the centuries? I don’t know.
tonyb
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/sea-level-rise-what-has-happened-so-far
The sea level during the Mid-evil warming period was 5″-8″ higher than today.
From this it can reasonably be concluded that when current temperatures reach those of the Mid-evil Warming Period the sea level will be 5″-8″ higher.
However If we adjust for GIA (the 0.4mm per year sinking of the sea floor) that the sea level adjusters use to justify adding 0.3mm to the annual sea level, they were effectively 5″-8″ + 0.4 meters higher than today,proving the MWP was much warmer. 5″-8″ + 0.4 meters is almost 2 feet.
Fernando,
I don’t follow the oil industry, but I did note that Jim Chanos said he was shorting some oil companies because the recovery costs were increasing thus squeezing margins, which fits your thesis.
The demand side is significant, though.
US, Japan, and most of Europe are aging rapidly.
For one thing, this means slower growth ( greater percentage of the population is living on fixed income ).
For another thing, old farts, after they take that dream trip and also visit the grand kids, come back home and don’t travel much.
Efficiency is also at work, but the overall pattern is clear – the more economically advanced a country is, the more likely their CO2 emissions are declining.
So, paradoxically, the best way to reduce global emissions is to foster African development with fossil energy!
The UN doesn’t have courage, it has a network of vested interests. The flow of money into this cabal is enormous. Many of these countries are hoping for a reparation payday from you-know-who even while they dump their share of CO2.
“I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid people are generally Conservative”
The precautionary principle means that one should not stray far from success, and into the unknown; the default Conservative system is that things are working OK and can be improved in an evolutionary, not revolutionary manner.
Most accurate statement of the week by Schellnhuber
“I am communicating to heads of state and you have to keep it neat and simple. It was difficult enough to commuicate a 2C target … but it seems to have sunk in. How should I communicate to policy makers who have an attention span of 10 minutes a set of volatility signals … this is politically so naive,” he says.
“How on Earth do I explain to people they should care about joules of energy in ocean heat?”
Thx, JW, I quite agree.)
The lack of mention of nuclear power struck me.
The coupling of coastal cities to reverse-osmosis water supplies, supplied by inland nuclear power stations, would allow water resources to be used for watering plants.
If stupid people are generally conservative, why is it so hard for the liberals here to answer simple questions about Mann’s work. It sort of looks like there are plenty of stupid liberal people.
AK – the price of oil will continue to trend up, so an increasing tax really isn’t necessary.
So your Tesla runs on carbon free sources of electricity?
It is funny how FOMD uses such polarizing rhetoric.
“The met office refer to the pause, so why won ‘t you?”
For fan and a few other alarmist hold-outs, it’s the interruption that dares not speak its name.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/sea-level-rise-what-has-happened-so-far
Medieval Warming Period 5″-8″ higher sea level than today.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/what-glacial-isostatic-adjustment-gia-and-why-do-you-correct-it
“the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr”
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries_global.php
“The estimates of sea level rise do not include glacial isostatic adjustment effects on the geoid, which are modeled to be +0.2 to +0.5 mm/year when globally averaged.”
All of the GMSL sites add 0.3 mm for GIA to the sea level per year (despite the NOAA claim).
Sea floor is sinking 0.3mm per year. Using 0.3mm x 1000 years for the GIA offset (I used 0.4 before in the thread) the sea floor was 11.8 inches (that’s almost a foot) higher than today.
The MWP temperature driven sea level was effectively 17″-20″ higher than today. Further – the current level rise started in the late 1700’s.
Two points:
1. Some/Most/All of the sea level rise is natural and we aren’t going to stop the natural rise.
2. MWP was much warmer than today (up to 20″ of sea level warmer)..
It’s just what we need: a massive rebranding exercise sanctioned by Nature (the crud publication, not the real thing).
Where were Victor and Kennel when they needed to sell New Coke?
Excellent post, Judith. Re V&K’s “Instead, a set of indicators is needed to gauge the varied stresses that humans are placing on the climate system and their possible impacts,” I’d prefer a set of indicators which gauge the stresses placed on humans by futile attempts to micro-manage the climate.
“Warm-us, interruptus”.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. If you weren’t a biologist, I’d be sure you are…
“We just don’t know what the 21st century climate will be (I doubt we’ve appropriately bounded the possibilities), and hence we are faced with conditions of deep uncertainty for decision making.”
Deep uncertainty didn’t stop numbers-man Robert McNamara. Looks like it won’t stop the IPCC. Some people just aren’t convinced till they’ve burned through a few trillion. They like something they can count.
It’s true that numbers never lie….about numbers!
