×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science
77

The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
----------Introduction---------
A comparison of recent temperature trends in isolation of earlier data, say 1998-present, to long(er)-term temperature trends, say 1970-present, reveals that more recent temperature trends are lower than long-term temperature trends. This has led many, including many prominent climate scientists, to refer to the recent period as a “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown”. While in isolation of any other context besides two temperature trends, the term “pause” or “hiatus” may be quasi-accurate, much more context is required to determine whether these terms are statistically and, more importantly, physically accurate.

It should be noted that most times when these terms are used by climate scientists, they keep the quotation marks to indicate the mention-form of the word and are not implying an actual physical pause or hiatus in climate change. The subsequent research into the physical mechanism behind the “pause” has continually demonstrated that it is not indicative of a pause in climate change nor does it suggest a drastic reduction in our estimates of climate sensitivity. However, this fact appears to be lost on many who see the “pause” as some kind of death-blow to the anthropogenic climate change theory or to the relevancy of climate change models.

While this subject has been discussed repeatedly in these forums, it has never been the focus but rather used as a jet-pack style argument to change the conversation from the subject at hand to the “pause” (“Well that can’t be right because the Earth hasn’t warmed in X years!”). Revisiting past threads, I cannot find an example of where someone attempted to defend the “pause” as a valid argument against anthropogenic climate change. It is brought up, debunked and then not defended (and then gets brought up again 5 posts later). The hope is to discuss the scientific literature surrounding the “pause” to help readers understand why the “pause” is simply not a valid argument. While some points have been discussed (usually by me) before, this post does contain new research as well as 2014 and 2015 temperature data, which shed even more light on the topic. The post will be split into three parts: 1) the introduction (and a brief discussion on satellite versus surface station temperature data sets), 2) Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2? and 3) Does the “pause” suggest that climate models are deeply flawed?

------Why I Will Be Using Ground-Based Temperature Data Sets-------
Prior to going into the meat of the discussion, I feel it necessary to discuss why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and not satellite data sets. Perhaps one of the most hypocritical and confused (or purposefully misleading) arguments on many “skeptic” blogs is the disdain for all ground-based temperature data sets and the promotion of satellite temperature data sets. The main contention with ground-based temperature data sets is that they do not include raw data and require homogenization techniques to produce their end result. While I am not here (in this thread) to discuss the validity of such techniques, it is crucial to understand that satellite temperature data sets go through a much more involved and complex set of calculations, adjustments and homogenizations to get from their raw data to their end product. Both what they measure and where they measure it are very important and highlights the deep confusion (or purposeful misdirection) of “skeptic” arguments that ground-based temperatures are rubbish and satellite-based temperatures are “better”.

  • Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.
  • Satellite record is constructed from a series of satellites, meaning the data is not fully homogeneous (Christy et al, 1998). Various homogenization techniques are required to create the record. (RSS information)
  • Satellites have to infer the temperature at various altitudes by attempting to mathematically remove the influence of other layers and other interference (RSS information). This is a very difficult thing to do and the methods have gone through multiple challenges and revisions. (Mears and Wentz 2005, Mears et al 2011, Fu et al 2004)
  • Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. The closest to “surface” temperatures they get are TLT which is an loose combination of the atmosphere centered roughly around 5 km. It is also not even a direct measurement channel (which themselves are not measuring temperature directly) but a mathematically adjustment of other channels. Furthermore, due to the amount of adjustments involved, TLT has constantly required revisions to correct errors and biases (Christy et al 1998, Fu et al 2005).
  • See the discussion on Satellite data sets in IPCC Report (section 3.4.1.2)
  • Satellite data and the large amount of homogenization and adjustments required to turn the raw data into useful temperature data are still being question to this day. Unlike ground-based adjustments which lead to trivial changes in trends (from the infamous Karl et al 2015), recent research shows that corrections of perhaps 30% are required for satellite data (Weng et al 2013 .
None of this is meant to say the satellite temperature data is “wrong” but it very clearly highlights the deep-set confusion in the “skeptic” camp about temperature data sets. If one finds themselves dismissing ground-based temperature data sets because they require homogenization or adjustments while claiming satellite temperature data sets are superior have simply been lead astray by “skeptics” or are trying to lead others astray. Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates that any attempt to compare satellite data (which measures the troposphere) to the surface temperature output of models is completely misguided (*cough*John Christy *cough*). It is for these reasons that I will use ground-based data in the rest of the post.

Again, I would like to state that I do not wish this to be a focal point of this discussion. I am merely outline why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and my justification for that as, undoubtedly, someone would claim I should be using satellite temperature datasets. In fact, I appear to be in pretty good company; Carl Mears, one of the chief researchers of RSS (and the same Mears from all the papers above), stated:

Quote (Carl Mears)

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset
If this is a topic of interest to people, perhaps starting your own thread would be advisable as I will not be responding to comments on temperature data sets on this thread. Now, onto the actual discussion…

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

4
(OP)
-------Part 1: Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions?--------
The most common (mis)use of the “pause” is, as one prominent poster on these forums said,:
“With the last 16 years of nearly constant average temperatures and steadily increasing CO2, in any other field the data would cause the whole AGW hypotheses to be put into the bin along with eugenics and the earth-centric universe.”

While we all wish it could be that simple, it simply is not. This mentality misses many (if not all) important points necessary to understand the “pause” and climate change in general. Here I will outline the 4 main concepts: 1) surface temperatures do not tell the full story, 2) internal variability, mainly from ENSO events, can greatly influence short-term trends, 3) as new data comes in, the “pause” looks weaker and weaker and 4) statistically, the “pause” lies somewhere between being extremely insignificant to outright non-existent.

1) Surface Temperatures Do Not Tell the Full Story
Surface temperatures are certainly not the only metric that exhibits signs of climate change (see my post in this thread at 16 Jan 14 01:20 for ~10 examples of other metrics). It’s important to understand that only 2.3% of the increased heat due to radiative imbalance into the atmosphere, while most (93.4%) goes into the oceans (AR4 5.2.2.4). This makes ocean heat content (OHC) an incredibly important metric when discussing if the earth is (still) gaining energy or not.

NOAA tracks OHC at the “surface” (0-700m) and deep ocean (0-2000m). The results clearly show that OHC has increased throughout the “pause” (NOAA OHC data available here). From 1998 to 2014, 0-700m OHC has increased 8.96x10^22 J (208% increase) and from 2005 (when ARGO was fully deployed) to 2014, 0-2000m OHC has increased 9.94x10^22J (97% increase). This conclusively demonstrates that Earth has still gained energy during the “pause” and climate change hasn’t “stopped”.


In a previous discussion on this topic, a poster stated “but it is a little hard to get excited about 0-2000m data when the /average/ depth of oceanic water is 3700m”. However, abyssal OHC (below 2000m) has also been analyzed. Purkey and Johnson 2010, Kouketsu et al 2011, Johnson et al 2007 all concluded that abyssal OHC has increased during the recent period. Simply put, OHC, at all depths, has continued to increase, demonstrating that climate change never magically went away during the “pause”.

Furthermore, temporary slowdowns in surface warming are usually coupled with increases in deep OHC. Balmaseda et al 2013, Meehl et al 2013 and Meehl et al 2011 all examined this relationship and concluded that during “pause”-like periods, surface OHC increased at a slower rate and deep OHC increased at a faster rate. From Meehl et al 2011:

Also see:
- England et al 2014
- Balmaseda et al 2013
- Abraham et al 2013
- Levitus et al 2013

This is very much so consistent with the physical mechanism of La Nina events - where warm water is pushed further away from the surface, due to strengthening trade wins, thus reducing surface temperatures. More on this in the next point.

2) Internal Variability Can Greatly Impact Short Term Trends
While increases in atmospheric CO2 have been responsible for the long-term warming, short-term trends can still be impacted by internal variability. ENSO events appear to be one of the largest contributor to internal variability. In brief, ENSO relates to the weakening (during El Nino) and strengthening (during La Nina) of Pacific equatorial trade winds. During El Nino years, when trade winds are weak, warm water that usually pools in the West Pacific moves closer to the surface, where it interacts with the Atmosphere more readily, and is transported eastward. During La Nina, the strong trade winds cause warm water to pool deeper in the Western Pacific and causes stronger upwelling of cold water in the Eastern Pacific. While the impact of ENSO events is strong, it is also temporary. El Nino’s typically last for 9 months to ~12 month. La Nina’s can last for 1 to 3 years.

The typical period selected for the “pause” is 1998 to 2013. Interestingly, 1998 was the strongest El Nino event in recorded history and 2013 was a recovery from two consecutive La Nina events (source). Needless to say, the trend of the “pause” was highly influenced by ENSO events. It’s a little bit like being on an all-burger diet for the past month. Except you took your first weigh-in after three weeks, in work boots and a heavy jacket, right after a big meal and then your last weigh-in at the end of the month, in just your boxers, right after doing a 20 km jog in a sweat suit. Between the two weigh-ins, you might not have gained that much weight but this is because of the short-term “variable” effects; you still gained 20 pounds over the course of the month. It would be absurd to claim that your all-burger diet was “good for your health” as any fair comparison of your weight would clearly show a steady rise in weight.

The simplest way to do a fair comparison is to ensure you are looking at a long enough trend (say 30 years) such that the impact of short term variability is minimized. However, one way to do a fair comparison for shorter term trends is to compare ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years, El Nino years to El Nino years and La Nina years to La Nina years. By doing so, you are eliminating most of the impact of such events, so you can see if there is an underlying warming trend. When you do so, you see that the trend during the “pause” is similar to the 30 year trend and the trend since 1950 for ENSO neutral years, El Nino years and La Nina years (ENSO state data from NOAA, temperature data from NASA GIST). Furthermore, this directly disproves the idea that ENSO is responsible for warming. ENSO can impact year-to-year variance by switching ENSO states but it cannot impact the long-term trend in ENSO neutral years (or El Nino or La Nina years). To put this in perspective, the 1995 El Nino (the hottest year on record at the time) was colder than any 21st century La Nina (or any 21st century year for that matter). Below is an image from NASA illustrating the steady rise in similar ENSO state years.


However, ENSO is not the only form of natural variability. Volcanic activity can temporarily cool the planet. During the period of the “pause”, no major volcanic eruptions have occurred. However, Santer et al 2015 indicates that smaller volcanic eruptions have increased and have a had a slight cooling impact on the planet. Furthermore, solar activity has been in decline since ~1960 and the 11-cylcle peak was near 1998. While the solar change has minimal impact (see this article from NASA as an example) on changes in global temperature, it has introduced a slight cooling effect to the “pause” period. Lastly, anthropogenic aerosols have been increasing faster than predicted. This too adds a slight cooling effect to the “pause” period.

Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 examined all of these impacts on temperature trends. They found that when you remove the short term noise caused by internal variability, the underlying warming trend caused by CO2 stands out very clear – even throughout the “pause”.


And yes, internal variability can also work to make short-term trends look bigger than they actually are. This is exactly what was noticed in Rahmstorf et al. 2007. They found that the trend from 1992 to 2006 was 0.28 C/decade, much larger than the long-term trend of 0.16 C/decade. Rather than promoting sensationalist reasons for the warming (like many “skeptics” have been doing with the “pause”), the authors concluded, very rationally:

Quote (Rahmstorf et al 2007)

The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system.
The situation is well articulated by Grant Foster, of Foster and Rahmstorf, in this article on his blog.

So while internal variability can have a large impact on short-term trends, when you look at long-term trends or relevant comparisons, you quickly see the CO2 warming trend has not magically gone away. This is why with 2014 and 2015 temperature data, the “pause” is already disappearing.

3) The Newest Data Continues to Undermine the “Pause”
The “pause” has been a rather quiet argument as of late. No doubt this is partly because 2014 and 2015 temperature data have put those that rely on the “pause” in a bit of hot water. 2014 was the hottest year on record for most temperature data sets and 2015 is looking to smash the 2014 record (especially if the El Nino fully develops). Below is a graph of NASA GISS and NOAA data, where the 2015 data is the “year-to-date” to June 2015 (image from here:


Perhaps the paper that has received the most attention in 2015 (so far), especially on “skeptic” blogs (that are still freaking out about it), was Karl et al 2015. Correcting biases, primarily in sea surface temperature data, the new data set found that the 2000-2014 trend was 0.116 C/decade compared to 0.113 C/decade from 1950-1999 (see the graph from the paper here – circles = old value, square = with corrections and triangles = with kriging in-fill (like Cowtan and Way 2013)). While I do not wish to start a Karl et al 2015 flame war, I will say that the actual adjustments were very small (see below) which (1) minimizes the screams of “fixing the data” and (2) demonstrates just how flimsy the “pause” was to begin with.


But the “pause” was already hurting well before 2015. Cowtan and Way 2013 discussed how the sparse coverage in the arctic, which is warming most rapidly, leads to a cooling bias in most data sets. Using kriging to fill in the gaps, they produced an updated version of HadCRUT data that covered much more of the globe than before. The results was that the 1998-2013 trends were much more in line with long-term trends, thus weakening the “pause”. They have recently updated their research and have published a more recent paper in 2014.

It’s not just updates to temperature data sets that show the planet has been steadily warming. Durack et al 2014 found that upper OHC had previously been underestimated by 2.2 to 7.1x10^22 J, putting yet another nail in the “pause” ‘s coffin. All of this research indicated that not only was the “pause” not indicative of a slowdown in energy accumulation but that there really was not a significant “pause” in global temperatures.

The fact that a few minor changes to data sets or a few more years worth of data could invalidate the “pause” speaks to how weak of an argument it was in the first place, both physically (as demonstrated in points 1 and 2) and statistically (as will be shown in point 4).

4) The “Pause” is not Statistically Significant.
As has been made evident from the previous 3 points, the “pause” was always an incredibly flimsy argument that required carefully selecting a short-term period and completely ignoring any other context. Upon investigating it in proper context, it immediately falls apart. So, a very natural question is, “was the “pause” ever statistically significant?” The clear answer is no.

This point was demonstrated by two recent papers. The first is Cahill et al 2015. They highlight the whole situation surrounding the “pause” quite well by stating:

Quote (Cahill et al 2015)

While close to 50 papers have already been published on the 'hiatus' or 'pause' (Lewandowsky et al, in press), the important question of whether there has been a detectable change in the warming trend (rather than just variability in short-term trends due to stochastic temperature variations) has received little attention.
Co-author Stefan Rahmstorf wrote a blog post discussing the concept in detail. The Cahill et al paper used change point analysis to search for discontinuities in temperature trends that would give credence to the term “pause”. They found nothing to support it.

Quote (Cahill et al 2015)

…no evidence of any detectable change in the global warming trend since ~1970. We conclude that the term ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ cannot be statistically justified.

The second is Foster and Abraham 2015. Like the first paper, co-author Grant Foster wrote a blog post detailing the topic. They focused on 1970-present data and tried various test specifically designed to find such a trend change. They concluded:

Quote (Foster and Abraham 2015)

A barrage of statistical tests was applied to global surface temperature time series to search for evidence of any significant departure from a linear increase at constant rate since 1970. In every case, the analysis not only failed to establish a trend change with statistical significance, it failed by a wide margin.

Part 1 Conclusion (TL;DR)
In the first part, we examined the question, “does the “pause” suggest that that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions?” This can be translated to say, “does the fact that CO2 has gone up while temperatures have not risen as fast as previous periods mean that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions?”. We can assuredly answer “no” to this question based on the following:
  • OHC has continued to rise throughout this period. In fact, deep OHC rises faster during slower periods of slower surface temperature warming. This means that there is no significant reduction in the rate of energy increase on the planet, just that it is going into different places.
  • The perceived slowdown in surface warming is due to the period being heavily biased by internal variability. The period started with the strongest El Nino on record which then transitioned into a La Nina dominated period. When examining ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years, La Nina years to La Nina years or El Nino years to El Nino years, all three show trends very similar to the long-term trends. This implies there is a consistent warming trend through the “pause”.
  • 2014 was the hottest year on record for most data sets and 2015 looks like it will smash the 2014 record. Even when ignoring all the other relevant points discussed here, the “pause” quickly disappears when incorporating the latest temperature data. Furthermore, update OHC data, better arctic coverage and other improvements to temperature data sets all additionally undermine the concept of the “pause”.
  • Not only does the “pause” mean very little in a physical sense, perhaps most damning, is that the “pause” never existed in a statistically significant sense. Basically, the “pause” was born out of eye-balling graphs and blindly comparing temperature trends over different periods. However, the moment that you apply some statistical rigor to the “pause”, you realize it was never statistical significant and, therefore, meaningful in the first place.
  • A nice 6-minute video that summarizes most of the research by Kevin Cowtan (of Cowtan and Way).
The “pause” does not, in any way, suggest that climate change has stopped nor does it suggest that climate change may not be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The “pause”, which doesn’t even exist in a statistically significant sense, does not put the anthropogenic climate change theory into question. It should be noted that all the points provided are largely independent of each other and all, independently, demonstrate that the “pause” is simply not a valid argument against the anthropogenic climate change theory. Any attempt to salvage the “pause” as valid needs to clearly disprove all of the points provided.

Furthermore, with a proper understand of the science surrounding the “pause” (or lack thereof), the recent discrepancy between observed temperatures and modeled temperatures makes much more sense. Part 2 will incorporate the lessons learned from Part 1 and discuss the impact on examining climate models. However, as there is already a lot of information to digest, I feel we should have a discussion on Part 1 prior to me posting Part 2. Please feel free to ask questions about the physics surrounding the “pause”. All model related questions should be withheld until after I post Part 2.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"The “pause” does not, in any way, suggest that climate change has stopped nor does it suggest that climate change may not be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions." ... completely agree; the pause is a complete non sequitur as far as ACC goes.

IMHO, the main point about the pause, or "pause", is ... consider the global temperature graphs we were shown in the 90s, they were pretty much monotonic and as such predicted dire doom. But the real world intercepted these predictions and something different happened. This then gives rise to the question "how to believe these models ?" ... oops, a model question ... should've waiting for part 2.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

The term 'green house gases' seems to imply that there existance acts like a green house. And as anyone with a green house knows, it does not heat up as much on a cloudy day.
Note that the solar cycle have been rather calm over the past several years, so maybe the solar clouds have been causing a shadow on your warming.

So why are you making it so complicated? Less sun, less warming.

The assumption that the sun is a constant is not only wrong, it is dumb.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Note that the solar cycle have been rather calm over the past several years, so maybe the solar clouds have been causing a shadow on your warming."

OMG, it's varying all over the place:


TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

and after a 5 month "pause", we're back at it ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

The pause does not mean AGW is a thing. The pause does not mean AGW is not a thing. Trying to understand the pause is a valuable exercise.

But the most important thing the pause proved, quite honestly, is that models we were told were absolutely predictive, weren't.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

As engineers, we ought to know, just from the models we use, that no model is "absolutely predictive," so to say, "we were told," seems to be disingenuous indignation, since we already know that could never have been plausible. The question, as with models we work with, is whether the models are "good enough," and there's no evidence that they're not.

I haven't seen any demonstration that the "pause" or any declines in the time series aren't just noise. Why not pick the period from 1992 to 1998 as an example of an "acceleration?" Seems to me that if the "pause" proves anything, then the "acceleration" should likewise prove something.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

That the last models absolutely were not good enough should qualify at least as some evidence that today's models might not be good enough.

That the climate sensitivity number, which is the money number in the IPCC reports, continues to diverge with each new IPCC report instead of converging, should also be evidence that today's models might not be good enough. Today's models certainly aren't any more "sure" than the last ones were, who all unanimously missed the pause.

Both of these are evidence, at least to me, that we should take care in utilizing current modeling to make decisions that fundamentally alter the world economy on which everyone's very lives are hinged.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Being wrong in the past does not preclude anyone from being right in the future. To think otherwise would have us still living in caves wondering if stone would ever truly replace the wooden points of our spears.

The information/data/projections require a fair amount of scrutiny, of course, but they also deserve the absence of biases.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote:

Being wrong in the past does not preclude anyone from being right in the future.

Of course it doesn't. But being definitively wrong in the past is evidence that it's possible to be wrong in the present. To think otherwise would likewise have us living in caves etc etc.

I would think that we should not be hanging our hats on a climate sensitivity number (the money number) where each successive attempt at arriving at that number through modeling has shown the models diverging away from each other, instead of converging on the "right" answer. That would be the first, very bare minimum amount of scrutiny I'd like to see before implementing vast, world changing policy decisions that could impact the global economy.

If the drastic policy measures being discussed related to this science are to be implemented, they will be the most egregiously impactful policy decisions ever made based on science, in the history of mankind. And therefore, the most important thing to get right in the history of mankind. Yet the IPCC estimates of mean climate sensitivity are off by a factor of what, 4? Depending on the model you pick. They're all over the place.

So the fact that we have been wrong before should be on everyone's mind with this stuff. That's the importance of the pause.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Regarding models:
Reading David Simpson's blog "Computer Models Never Prove Anything" from 2010 provides a well articulated thesis that is seldom found in the mainstream "science" debate. As actual measurements are shown to be increasingly divorced from original model estimates, this is becoming more evident.

Regarding everything else:
I have yet to see an acceptable argument against any of the following points:
1. FACT: The direct effect of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is well-established physics and has been known for over a century.
2. FACT: Government funded climate "models" produce a majority of the positive feedback greenhouse effect by using an estimated sensitivity factor that has been shown to be far above that actually observed.
3. FACT: There is NO evidence whatsoever that conclusively shows an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is DIRECTLY linked to catastrophic violent weather, reduced crop yields, massive sea level rises, or any other commonly assumed result of our emissions.

I'm very open to being proven wrong about any of the above points so that I may shift my mindset.

Source:
https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case


However, I believe it to be naive to think that the global warming debate is actually about the science. It is a political debate plain and simple.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"It is a political debate plain and simple."

The emperor has no clothes!

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

If the climate change activists really cared about pollution and the well being of our planet, livestock and animal production would be on the forefront of the debate.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

From what I have seen, the largest spikes in electric usage are water pumping, air conditioner usage, and holiday lighting.
However you will note that none of the regulations go after those directly. Meaning a fear of direct voter conferentation.

It seems to be easy to provide regulations and taxes on energy companies, so it does not appear to be the governments actions, but the actions of the energy companies.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

... making clean water available would be high on my list.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote:

2. FACT: Government funded climate "models" produce a majority of the positive feedback greenhouse effect by using an estimated sensitivity factor that has been shown to be far above that actually observed.

This is the thing that bugs me.

If you have to twist your CO2 sensitivity dial triple the measured amount to get the model to calibrate properly, then that's a pretty good indicator that CO2 is actually only a third of the problem, and the other two thirds are things you're not modeling that are merely correlated with CO2. Which, as luck has it, is correlated with human population growth, with which many other possible AGW sources are also correlated.

I've yet to see a model handle land cover properly. The IPCC stuff thinks that all other things being equal, the earth would be cooler with its current land cover than the land cover 100 years ago. This is simply wrong. Figure out how and why that's wrong, and we'll be well on our way to figuring out why the IPCC is having such problems narrowing down the CO2 climate sensitivity estimates.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"2. FACT: Government funded climate "models" produce a majority of the positive feedback greenhouse effect by using an estimated sensitivity factor that has been shown to be far above that actually observed."

How is this a fact? Where are the peer reviewed results? Since the trend for the last 50 yrs is in "fact" upward, the argument that the predictions are "far above" the measurements is a red herring if the observed trend will already get us into trouble.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

IRStuff,

The second point is not referring directly to the temperature, it is the estimated sensitivity value that is above what is observed.

Here is an explanation of this phenomenon (@ 22:30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I was under the impression that the widely accepted direct effect of CO2 was a sensitivity of about 1.1 degrees celsius per doubling, IRStuff, and most of the banter in the last few IPCC reports was what that number "should be" when dampening and feedback effects are included. That is, as they say, the core of the argument.

IPCC AR4 said:

“The equilibrium climate sensitivity. . . is likely to be in the range 2oC to 4.5C with a best estimate of about 3oC and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5C. Values higher than 4.5oC cannot be excluded.”

IPCC AR5 said:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)

...but then curiously left out a "best estimate" entirely, and blamed the variability of the models for why they chose not to give a best estimate at all. Nevermind that they revised it down, but then made it sound like things were getting worse. When folks try to calculate ECS with less reliance on model calibration, and focus on providing legitimate error bands on their predictions, they land at an expected value that's more like 1.64 C:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-...

..which ain't all that far off of the 1.1 C we'd presume from straight chemistry.

Yet nobody seems to be willing to accept that the warming might be coming from somewhere else, indirectly correlated with but not caused by CO2. In my mind, that should be the second big takeaway from 'the pause,' that perhaps we need to be looking for other drivers than just CO2. I think searching for those other drivers would do the science a world of good, even though it wouldn't likely help Al Gore's carbon trading scheme at Goldman Sachs.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
ZeroSeq,

Climate sensitivity is a very interesting topic. It was discussed here before. I'm afraid that, as IRstuff pointed out, your "Fact" #2 is hardly fact. In reality, it goes against almost all the peer-reviewed research on the subject. Please see my opening post in the thread linked for a few such examples.

The relevant part to this discussion is that the "pause" was often used as an argument that Earth was not that sensitivity to CO2. As has been demonstrated in Part 1, the Earth has continued to gain energy at a very steady pace, indicating that the radiative imbalance due to CO2 is still very much there. Furthermore, the fact that solar activity has been in decline since ~1960 while OHC has continued to rise would be very difficult to explain if CO2 sensitivity wasn't large (so would all of the Earth's past...but that's another story...).

And please, I ask that discussion on model accuracy be left until after I post the second part. It's my hope that by outlining the research and facts surrounding the matter, much of the confusion will be erased. But, again, I'd like to stress that understanding the information presented in Part 1 is a prerequisite to being able to understand and discuss models accuracy in relation to the "pause". If you simply cannot wait, I suggest my post on models at 4 Apr 14 17:45 in this thread.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor,

My apologies for highjacking your thread, although a topic like climate change is bound to have multiple tangents.

Regarding the purpose of this thread, I think a majority of the people would agree with beej67's initial response:

"The pause does not mean AGW is a thing. The pause does not mean AGW is not a thing. Trying to understand the pause is a valuable exercise.
But the most important thing the pause proved, quite honestly, is that models we were told were absolutely predictive, weren't."

That being said, lets just assume for a moment that CO2 is the sole cause (primary forcing mechanism with exceedingly high sensitivity) of global warming.

So what?

I think the most important discussion should be about confirming the hypotheses of disastrous consequences on our way of life (so called "superstorms", drought, floods, famine, apocalypse, Hilary Clinton, etc.) before one more of my tax dollars are spent on programs like Solyndra.





RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconner,
You should have learned by not that cats cannot be herded.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Here is a link of interest to this topic:

Link

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Yet nobody seems to be willing to accept that the warming might be coming from somewhere else, indirectly correlated with but not caused by CO2. In my mind, that should be the second big takeaway from 'the pause,' that perhaps we need to be looking for other drivers than just CO2. I think searching for those other drivers would do the science a world of good, even though it wouldn't likely help Al Gore's carbon trading scheme at Goldman Sachs."

Based on what measurements and what phenomenology? I hear lots of noise about "might be," etc., but, again, why haven't the millions of dollars spent by the Koch brothers, etal, supporting the deniers produced tangible alternative and quantitative explanations? Seems to me that the Koch brothers could have easily funded dozens of climate scientists to find an alternative explanation.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2

Quote (ZeroSeq)

I think the most important discussion should be about confirming the hypotheses of disastrous consequences on our way of life (so called "superstorms", drought, floods, famine, apocalypse, Hilary Clinton, etc.) before one more of my tax dollars are spent on programs like Solyndra.

And I think the hypothesis of "disastrous consequences" arising from doing something meaningful about AGW has to be proven by the people making that assertion.

Solyndra? Governments do dumb, costly stuff from time to time, even with the best of intentions. Tons of private money is similarly wasted on dumb schemes, usually dragging a bunch of public money with it down the toilet. Right now, governments are foregoing an enormous amount of tax collection on very profitable fossil fuel industries, as well as providing other subsidy to forms of energy that generate significant risks for people who aren't consumers of that energy, including future generations. Personally I find that far more offensive than the odd Solyndra. Those 3rd party impacts from fossil energy consumption should be addressed by means of a tax, combined with better emissions regulations, and that should happen irrespective of whether AGW is a "thing" or not.

Models can't prove anything, but basic physics is all you need to know to understand the RISK represented by CO2 emissions. If you want to carry out some kind of Earth-scale cost-benefit analysis related to altering the Earth's climate and then do an economic impact minimization study to generate an optimal result, I suggest you're going to be out of luck on this one. There are no accelerated timescale miniature Earths on which to carry out the necessary trials.

Nature will eventually wean us from our fossil fuel addiction- it's merely a question of whether or not we'll exceed Earth's carrying capacity for the effluent first. It is very difficult to substitute the fossil liquids with renewables, and those materials are the source of many, many things we find essential to our modern existence. Getting people from point A to point B using a power source other than liquid fuels is childsplay in comparison. That transition is happening now, but it will happen even faster if we alter the broken economics that support the status quo by means of a fossil carbon tax. That tax will do what it needs to, in economic terms, whether the money is spent as it should be (to help people make investments in using less energy of all kinds), or "wasted" on Solyndras, or schools and hospitals etc. The undeniably toxic emissions from fossil fuel combustion happen to absolutely positively correlate with their CO2 emissions.

I say it's high time we got on with it.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

There maybe an interesting point hidden here. The Koch brothers may not be interested in finding the missing component, because it just may be CH4 which has been leaking from oil, coal, and other human events, and maybe almost unaccounted for.

This once thought of gas has a low BTU, and has been consitered a waste product. It is emitted from oil fields, coal mines (working or not), dung heaps, sewer plants, and has increased with human activity.

Maybe CO2 is wrong, but the Koch brothers don't want to admit what is the correct answer.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Moltenmetal, I tend to agree with your first paragraph.

I think we have beaten an entire chorale of dead horses on the subject of whether or not man is affecting Earth's climate. Nobody is going to change their view.

I think its time to shift the discussion to what the consequences are, be it bad or good, and what is the best way to tackle said problem (if it turns out to be a problem).

Convincing me that our emissions are the main cause of global warming, that's one thing. Convincing me that our emitted CO2 (and thus global warming) is the DIRECT cause of famine, drought, superstorms, and floods.. well, that's a whole different ball game.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote:

Based on what measurements and what phenomenology?

The Lewis/Curry study above is quite detailed, peer reviewed, work, and sets the ECS at 1.64. Which is within the lower bound of IPCC AR5, for what that's worth, since IPCC AR5 can't seem to nail things down within a factor of 3. The IPCC literally stated, most recently, that "the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is somewhere between 1.5 degrees celcius per doubling to maybe uhh something like triple that much."

This science is not good enough on which to base major policy decisions that affect the entire globe. "Maybe something like 1.5 or maybe triple that" is not good enough to set global policy on. It's just not.

No other science that blatantly undetermined has ever been used to craft policy.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Lewis and Curry was discussed here already. Not a single person (including yourself) bothered to defend the paper then but that won't stop you from parroting it again.

I'll also include the quote from from Nasim Taleb:

Quote (Nasim Taleb)

Skepticism about climate models should lead to more precautionary policies in the presence of ruin. It is incoherent to doubt the mean while reducing the variance.
"Skeptics" only like to look at the left side of sensitivity probability distributions, while ignoring the right, fat-tail.

Quote (ZeroSeq)

My apologies for highjacking your thread, although a topic like climate change is bound to have multiple tangents.
No worries ZeroSeq, I appreciate how intertwined the aspects of climate change are. As I haven't seen you in these discussions before, you might not be aware of the past discussions which is why I referenced that other thread (beej67 doesn't have that excuse though). But I apologize if I came off as curt with you.

But back to the topic at hand, are all of you that seem to think that Part 1 is pointless willing to admit:
1) OHC has continued to rise by a large amount while solar activity has been dwindling, demonstrating that the radiative imbalance is still present
2) ENSO has played a very large role in the apparent lower trends as of late (very important for Part 2)
3) New data, including 2014 and 2015 temperatures and updated research, demonstrate that the warming is larger than appeared a few years back (when AR5 was released...again very important for Part 2)
4) Statistically speaking, the "pause" never existed

If so, I guess I can work on finishing Part 2.

(edit: fixed link to "Climate Sensitivity and What Lewis and Curry 2014 Has to Say About it")

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Can any of you guys, RConnor or IR or anyone else, explain to me in detail how the modelers handle the storage terms in the energy budget associated with photosynthesis?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Well, so the consensus even from skeptics is that we are warming the planet by using a resource that will eventually run out and need to be replaced, and the argument is that it's more economically viable to completely use up our resources now and figure out the solution later when we've massively altered our climate?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I'm a "skeptic" and I am still under the impression that we do not know with any degree of certainty what our impact truly is.

I'm also under the impression that it is almost useless discussing this topic further as nobody will change their view. rconnor, I appreciate the effort that you put into your posts, I still have quite a bit of reading to do.

What I have yet to see is a detailed discussion on the evidence supporting the hypothesis that our impact is directly correlated to potentially disastrous consequences on our way of life.
That is the most important issue as our response to such a hypothesis (such as increasing the cost of energy and thus the cost of food, causing starvation for millions who live on a few dollars a day) without concrete evidence is extremely harmful (some may say immoral).

If that has already taken place, please let me know and leave a link to the thread.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I'm not sure there's a consensus among people labeled "skeptics," other than that they are all skeptical that a body of science that can't narrow the most important variable in the research down to within a factor of 3, can be relied upon for crafting the most economically manipulative global policy in the history of mankind.

Quote (rconnor)

Lewis and Curry was discussed here already. Not a single person (including yourself) bothered to defend the paper then but that won't stop you from parroting it again.

Yep, sure was. You opened by stating very clearly that they might be right.

Quote (rconnor)

To claim that a single paper can definitely set climate sensitivity, is false. While on the low side, Lewis and Curry 2014 does sit within the spectrum of other estimates.

Hell, their number lies within the IPCC AR5 range for what tHe IPCC themselves call "high confidence."

But having a "high confidence" of 1.5 to 4.5 just isn't very confident as far as I'm concerned, if planning policy for 1.5 is different than planning policy for 4.5. That's like turning on the TV and having the weather lady say there's a 90% chance of it being either rainy or sunny tomorrow. A range that large is of little value in crafting policy.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

When you put your next big post together, rconnor, can you please carve off a paragraph to talk about how the storage term for chemical photosynthesis is handled within the global energy balance modeling? That's of particular interest to me, personally, and contrary to what you may believe, I do find your posts interesting reading.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"But having a "high confidence" of 1.5 to 4.5 just isn't very confident as far as I'm concerned, if planning policy for 1.5 is different than planning policy for 4.5. That's like turning on the TV and having the weather lady say there's a 90% chance of it being either rainy or sunny tomorrow. A range that large is of little value in crafting policy."

And yet, we do that all the time. How many times have we designed systems without full knowledge? How much certainty is there that any given customer will pay their bills on time or even at all? We "invest" in our 401Ks knowing that we really have zero knowledge about what's really going to happen, and consequently, we are, in fact, betting on the come that we'll have some sort of nest egg at the end of our careers. Nevertheless, one can still make horrible choices and wind up with little, or choose ultra-secure investments that will need very little. Anyone who even works for any company has little assurance that they'll still have a job five years from now. Anyone who worked at Enron, Montgomery Ward, or Northrop Grumman can attest to the fact that job security is non-existent. If we demand perfect knowledge of the future before we make a life-altering decision, I'd be surprised if we even made it out of bed every morning.

It seems odd that as working engineers who deal with uncertainty of outcome on a daily basis would demand so much certainty on modeling as complex a system as climate. If you apply your standard design safety factor to even the lowest estimate of temperature rise, where do you wind up?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Also, just reconsider the multitude of mutual and hedge funds and how few of them beat the market, despite the myriad of computers and algorithms and models that are applied to the problem. We make our investment decisions knowing that it's a crap shoot, but to do nothing guarantees no return.

If we do nothing, we're guaranteed to achieve the worst possible actual outcome. And we bet the farm on some "deus ex machina" solution will magically save us if the worst case becomes reality, whether that's some magical reversal of the climate change or the magical "adaptation" that we'll achieve. Is that the way we do designs and engineering?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

IRstuff,
Absolutely correct, it is a careful balance of risk vs. reward. However, the cost of immediate action (ie. drastic increase in energy costs leading to millions of people without access to cheap food, heating in winter, etc.) to gain the possible benefit of reduction in CO2 emissions that may slightly reduce global heating which in turn may, and that is a big may, reduce the probability of droughts, violent weather, ocean temp rise, etc. is what I disagree with.

Obviously, the above statement is an extreme simplification of the full cost/benefit analysis, but as of right now, public policy is focusing solely on the possible benefits and not on the immense costs.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Certainly, cost is a major obstacle, but we as a planet have often done things without necessarily full regard to cost; the US moon landing program is one such beast. If the country knew prior to the Mercury program how much it would eventually cost, would we still have proceeded? And to some extent, the massive cost isn't going to be instantaneous, if for no other reason than the fact that no one, with the possible exception of China, could lay their hands on that much money that quickly. As with current green initiatives, even if we decided today to make the necessary changes, it'll easily be 20 years before everything really gets going. Just look at the CAFE mileage standards that have taken 30 years to get about a 60% improvement. (Those dirty rats still are holding on to the 100 mpg engine designs winky smile

People complained about the cost of eliminating fluorocarbons that were killing the atmospheric ozone, yet almost 40 years later, other than some diehards who still hoard the "good" Freon, we've adjusted, and the ozone depletion seems to have at least "paused." There were certainly lots of naysayers saying that there were other causes of the ozone depletion, it would cost too much, there's be wholesale disruptions in the economy, etc. This discussion may simply be the first 3 stages of grief for the end of a lifestyle, much like what happened in the mid 70s when we discussed banning CFCs.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Remember when the USA went without several precious, and some common, metals, nylon stockings, and the majority of our male population, so that we could wage a war for a good cause back in the early 20th century? What was the cost there? We sacrificed so much, got by with so little, labored with great stress and immeasurable costs. That was only a war waged for a portion of the planet. This topic is absolutely global.

Keep in mind the scale of risk when you discuss the notion of cost. Context is key.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

It's an interestingly possible analogy, but the difference is that in WWII, we hit a series tipping points, including, of course, Pearl Harbor, by which time it became obvious that we could no longer simply sit on the sidelines cheering the Brits on. But, the tipping points weren't that easily predicable in 1933; we were still under the mistaken belief that Germany would not break their treaties. Obviously there were lots of people arguing against appeasing the Germans, but few would have expected to have to go to war 6 years later, or were even aware of that possibility.

So, what happens for the climate tipping point? Are we going to have to abandon our coastal cities or move wholesale into the mountains, to where the temperature zones moved? Would we, as we attempt to move our businesses and people from coasts of Los Angeles into the San Gabriel mountains be thinking that, "Gee, we should have done something sooner?" That's the possible cost of doing nothing. Interesting that for a society that ostensibly believes "a stitch in time saves nine" would be so dead set against even a modicum of prevention.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
beej67,

You are quite right to say that I do not believe Lewis and Curry 2014 is inherently flawed. However, I believe you missed a few important statements in the sensitivity thread:

Quote (rconnor)

Due to the fact the sample period and technique used introduce lowering biases into the results, LC14 may be useful in establishing the lower bound of sensitivity but in no way offers a conclusive value for the median or best estimate.

Quote (Myles Allen)

A 25 per cent reduction in TCR would mean the changes we expect between now and 2050 might take until early 2060s instead…So, even if correct, it is hardly a game-changer…any revision in the lower bound on climate sensitivity does not affect the urgency of mitigation
(source of quote)

Quote (rconnor)

So, Lewis and Curry 2014 is:
1) Inconclusive to definitely say that climate sensitivity is on the low end of the IPCC spectrum
2) The results are suspect and appear to include numerous biases that would lead to lower TCR and ECS
3) Even if it were conclusive and accurate, it would still not suggest that reductions in CO2 emissions are unnecessary. In fact, it adds to the scientific body of knowledge that temperatures will continue to rise to unsafe levels if we continue with the status-quo, just maybe a decade later than other estimates.

I should also note that the Myles Allen quote puts the issue into context. Even with all the biases in Lewis and Curry 2014 that act to lower their TCR/ECS values(not saying they were intentional but they are nevertheless there), it still means that mitigation measures are required (just slightly less urgently). Here's the thing - the difference between sensitivity estimates on the lower end and higher end equates to how quickly we need to enact mitigation measures, not whether we need to or not. This point continues to be lost amongst the discussion.

The other aspect that gets lost is the concept that uncertainty is not our friend. The probability distribution function of climate sensitivity is very fat-tailed. If you don't believe we have a good grasp of sensitivity, then we need to just as seriously contemplate the fact that we've underestimated sensitivity than we've overestimated it. As engineers, we do not do risk assessment exercises by going "but it COULD be better than we think...so let's not do anything about it!". Especially when both the high end is extremely negative and the most likely values are very negative (or a few more sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

(Regarding photosynthesis, it is random and off-topic. I will not be discussing it here (nor in Part 2) and hope that you can respect that. But here's some information - 1, 2, 3, 4. There's a lot of information out there. While I have not looked into it in much depth, it certainly looks like the scientific community has.)

Quote (ZeroSeq)

What I have yet to see is a detailed discussion on the evidence supporting the hypothesis that our impact is directly correlated to potentially disastrous consequences on our way of life...If that has already taken place, please let me know and leave a link to the thread.
The first place to find information on this is AR5 WGII. It is, by far, the most comprehensive review of the impacts of climate change. I also feel an understanding of paleoclimatology is important to put things into context. For this, I'd recommend my post at 23 Oct 14 17:19 on this thread. Past changes in climate (which were also driven by CO2, see my post at 22 Apr 15 21:28 here) lead to very drastic changes in the biosphere (1, 2, 3, 4). To imagine that the present is somehow different is, to me, wishful thinking.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (ZeroSeq)

the cost of immediate action (ie. drastic increase in energy costs leading to millions of people without access to cheap food, heating in winter, etc.)

The price of oil fell from $110 to below $40 per barrel in the past few years. Did this bring an end to hunger, cold and misery? No, you say? Why not? Is it all because of all those profit-taking bastards in the refineries not passing the savings on to the poor, suffering public? Or perhaps the economics isn't as straightforward as you're assuming?

You said you agreed with the first paragraph of my previous post, but I suspect you misread it. What I'm saying is that people, like you, who imply that increasing FOSSIL energy cost will bring an end to civilization as we know it, are making a predictive statement at least as sketchy as the wildest AGW claims.

Your concern for the poor is laudable but I suspect it's disingenuous. It's an argument made often by people who actually care least about the poor, and worry most about the perceived evils of their own government. But it's quite obvious that you cannot end hunger merely by subsidizing food, whether the subsidy is in the form of artificially cheap fuel and fertilizer to produce it or in some other form.

What we SHOULD have done is filled in, say, half or 2/3 the drop in oil prices with a carbon tax, so we wouldn't back-slide on the gains we made in energy efficiency simply because oil is cheap again. Regrettably we've lost that opportunity.

Nature will wean us from our fossil fuel addiction, eventually. We need to stop wasting these precious resources, if we more than pretend concern about the welfare of future generations. There is every reason to make the fossil resources- particularly the precious liquid ones- even more precious so they are wasted less- and to invest the proceeds in helping people switch to technologies which waste less energy of all kinds.

As to what technologies we should invest in, personally I suggest that carbon capture and sequestration is NOT one of the viable options. It's merely a way for us to p*ss through our finite fossil resources even faster. Rather, we need to invest in greater energy efficiency, and to stop the artificial subsidy on fossil energy. It's beyond absurd that technologies like solar PV and wind, or EVs and hybrids and public transit, or energy efficient lighting or heating etc. etc.- have to compete economically against status quo technologies which get to dump their effluent to the atmosphere free of charge. That change must happen whether AGW is a serious threat or not.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Due to the fact the sample period and technique used introduce lowering biases into the results, LC14 may be useful in establishing the lower bound of sensitivity but in no way offers a conclusive value for the median or best estimate.

That's not what IPCC AR5 said. They said a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C was "highest confidence" and explicitly did not give a median or best estimate. Can I appeal to authority in the argument if the authority is the IPCC itself? That seems to be what the pro-drastic-policy people do.

Quote (rconnor)

the difference between sensitivity estimates on the lower end and higher end equates to how quickly we need to enact mitigation measures, not whether we need to or not.

I strongly disagree, and the reason goes back to your CO2 blinders. The science will not be settled on CO2 until the error bands for "highest probability" for CO2 ECS are narrowed to within probably half a degree. Lets pretend the science finally settles at error bands between 1.5 C and 2.0 C. In that case, the modeling would clearly show that CO2 is not the only anthropogenic source. That there are other anthropogenic sources as significant as CO2. And if that's the case, then CO2 mitigation measures, no matter what they happen to be, would not be good enough to stop warming.

And this is science we have to get right. It is important to get this science right, with a high degree of certainty. That high degree of certainty simply isn't there yet.

There are two ways to deal with the global warming that is clearly happening. Not one. We can try and find a way to stop it, or we can prepare to live on a warmer planet. Maybe we do a blend of both. But we can't craft policy until we have predictive, high certainty science. And the pause showed, very clearly, that the science is not yet predictive. The very fact that AR5 has just as much uncertainty to the ECS that AR4 and AR3 did shows that the science is not yet predictive. It is especially important to identify all anthropogenic sources when crafting a mitigation policy.

Now in terms of policy objectives and the like, I think we need to shift as much as possible away from oil for political reasons. I think there's an ROI nobody's thinking about. If we (the USA) is no longer dependent on foreign oil, the strategic value of the Middle East dwindles to zero, and we can shift our foreign policy from "regional police" to "don't give a turd," saving probably half the Pentagon budget, and leaving Russia and China to provoke random acts of violence from the barbarian murder cults that live there. I also like carbon reduction for other reasons, namely carbonic acid concentrations rising in the oceans and potentially devastating the diatom ecosystem. But if you sell people on drastic policy based on bad science, and then the bad science becomes exposed, then you have permanently poisoned that well. And that's going to be very bad for environmentalism, and for our futures.

Lets unwrap this statement further:

Quote (rconnor)

the difference between sensitivity estimates on the lower end and higher end equates to how quickly we need to enact mitigation measures, not whether we need to or not.

The globe was warming before anthropogenic sources dominated. Even if we were able to mitigate all anthropogenic sources, we would not stop the globe from warming. That means that no amount of mitigation can stop it, only slow it down, so we need to be preparing to live on a warmer planet regardless of what we do with mitigation. And how much preparation vs how much mitigation goes back to ROI. Costs of both. We can't do the proper cost calculations to properly set policy until we know exactly how much sea level rise we avert per pound of CO2 emissions we avoid. A variance of 3 in that formula is not good enough to compare it to building bigger levies.

Thank you for the photosynthesis links. I'll read through them and ponder on that further. It would seem to me that unless the scientific community is accounting for the storage terms of energy caught up in chemical bonds during photosynthesis, they're missing a very large energy balance term. The aggregate of all chemistry taking place in every leaf on the planet is a huge number, and a number that has tracked with human population expansion every bit as much as CO2 has.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

ZeroSeq,

The Solyndra failure that is so often sited was part of a program of investments. Any investor making aggressive investments would expect some of them to succeed and some of them to fail. The overall program that included the Solyndra investment turned a very nice profit. To point at that one company and try to use that as proof that any investment in these technologies is foolish is deliberately misleading. It was a good program. It made a profit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/...

Johnny Pellin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Reviewing the links, I think they're missing an important key component on LULCC (land use and land cover change) forcing.

1) All the links say that LULCC cools the planet. We know this not to be true, we can see it from space.

2) All the links focus on the following factors:
albedo change
influences on atmospheric chemistry
aerosols

3) None of them talk about energy storage itself.

To take a wider look, my field (stormwater hydrology) does quite a lot with conservation of mass. What goes in must come out (less what remains). The storage .. (less what remains) .. is a very important term. Leaves aren't just changing albedo, and changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, they are storing solar energy in chemical bonds. Sometimes that energy is released in different ways, like if you burn the leaf, or something eats the leaf. But if the leaf isn't burned or digested, some of the energy is released during decomposition and the leaf turns to soil, where whatever remaining chemical bonds are added to the substrata of the earth itself. The energy is stored. Most people believe this is where the energy we extract from fossil fuels came from in the first place.

I think this is a potential gap in the science. And since vegetation has tracked downward with human expansion, the trend is a mirror of CO2 emissions, and a model intentionally calibrated towards blaming either of the two effects alone would appear to be just as correct as a model calibrated to blame the other, or a model properly calibrated to blame both.

On your links -

This ignores energy storage:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/bonan/seminars/Stoma...

This doesn't really talk about climate modeling, and is more about the effects of the climate on photosynthesis itself:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/acp-1...

3 was similar to 2:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-3...

This is similar to 1, in that it only concerns itself with the plants effects on CO2 concentration:
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/ctem/phtsyn/

More studies I've dug up, which are more pertinent to my question, still don't address the storage of energy itself as an energy budget term:

This is a great one, but again suffers from the omission I point out:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/12701/2014/acp-1...

This one just talks about atmo carbon balance:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/5/443/2014...

This one attempts to undo a lot of the hocus pocus in the modeling where people claim deforestation leads to coolilng, which is nice, but it still doesn't address my concern:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/317/2013...

This one's again just about carbon cycle:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/235/2013...

This one is neat. They model tree cover after CO2 increases along RCP 8.5, then magically erase the human race to see what the trees do.
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/485/2012...

This one is starting to crack the egg I'd like to see cracked, which is how LULCC affects hydrology, which in turn affects climate, but they're still not dealing with energy storage:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/201/2012...

I simply can't find anything in the literature that talks about the storage of solar energy by plantlife as term in the overall energy budget. Now I admit I could be barking up one of many wrong trees here. And if I can find one study that says this storage term should be flat out neglected, and it's a solid study, I'd probably drop the question. But I can't find one.

There are huge gaps in this scientific space. They admit they aren't sure how LULCC works. They admit they can't figure out how cloud cover fits into the whole picture, both because water vapor is a greenhouse gas but cloud cover reflects solar energy. All the LULCC maps in all these studies just show land. They are flat ignoring the photosynthetic processes of algae. This science is not good enough yet to craft a policy on which the entire world's economy will hinge. And that's clearly evident by the wide range of possible ECS values in IPCC AR5. I commend them for being honest about the high variability in their ECS prediction. But until we can get solid numbers to plug into this formula:

F(CO2)=(sealevelrise)

..we can't decide whether mitigation, preparation, just moving inland, or some combination of all three will be the best policy.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Hold on:'Just look at the CAFE mileage standards that have taken 30 years to get about a 60% improvement.'
Does anyone believe this?
I have a 30 year old pickup that still gets 31 MPG per gallon. Are you suggesting the new pickups are getting 49 MPG?
How many cars get that kind of mileage?

All the CAFE standards are doing is to reduce non-carbon output.


RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

CAFE standard is a fleet average, and in the intervening time, smog generation was drastically decreased, so the 30 yr pickup probably dumps way more smog than the current ones.

But, that's what takes the time to achieve whatever goals that are set. No one is going to set a requirement that is either unachievable or that costs everyone too much. The end result will be a slow grind to the ultimate goal. Unless, of course, sufficiently drastic disasters start occurring.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I had to stop and laugh at Rconnors sophism. One would think that a Mechanical engineer would know that nothing directly measures temperature.

Quote (Rconnor)

Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature.

Laughable absolutely laughable.

Tell me Rconnor how does a liquid thermometer measure temperature?

How does a probe thermometer measure temperature?

How does an IR thermometer measure temperature?

All thermometers measure some proxy for temperature and us that measurement to infer temperature.

Liquid thermometers measure the thermal expansion of a liquid like mercury.

Probe thermometers measure the electrical impermanence of their metal probe.

IR thermometers measure infrared radiation.

This is pure sophism. Rconnor started at his conclusion 'I have to ignore satellite data' and built his argument backwards form there.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"CAFE standard is a fleet average, and in the intervening time, smog generation was drastically decreased, so the 30 yr pickup probably dumps way more smog than the current ones." ... I mulled over this idea over the weekend. There's some hair-brained scheme to disperse vast amounts of sulphuric acid into the atmosphere to make particulates, to reduce GW. I mean, good grief, our unintended consequences are bad enough, now we're going to intentionally mess with the environment.

In any case, my thought was, why don't we just remove those catalytic converters and save everyone a ton of time and money ?

and don't say "'cause we plan to disperse the acid at 100,000 ft and cars will make smog at SL and the effect on climate is completely different. 'cause i'll say "remember the CHCs? they went where we didn't expect them to go; what do you think wil;l happen to these particles ?"


another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I'm just glad moltenmetal isn't in charge of running the economy (although I suspect it's pretty high on the priority list).

Just a personal story: my home heating bill has in fact decreased every year as the cost of oil has come down. When oil was trading at $120/barrel, I was paying $4.30/gal for the oil in my house. As oil trades at $45/barrel today, I'll be able to fill my tank for $1.79/gal. Oil down 60% on the open market, oil down 60% retail. I'm missing the part where the "profit-taking bastards" aren't passing along the savings.

Personally, I'm happy to keep the extra $2,700/year in my pocket. I'd suspect that other people of limited means also enjoy saving the money, or maybe living in additional comfort during the cold months if the lower cost of energy allows them to keep the thermostat a degree or two warmer.

"No no grandma! You can't pay 60% less for your oil this year and keep a larger portion of your Social Security check. We had to fill in 2/3 of that with a carbon tax because you're destroying the earth!"

-TJ Orlowski

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I can remember the "Global cooling" scare in the 70s. Politically motivated to grab more power for governments (the bigger the government, the small the individual) https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-....

Seems AGW has about as much "science" as AGC.

I also remember similar cries of "wolf" regarding runaway population growth. POWER GRABS ALL, care of Chicken Little Machiavelli!

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"This is pure sophism. Rconnor started at his conclusion 'I have to ignore satellite data' and built his argument backwards form there. "

Sophism by ignoring what Rconnor stated about why satellite measurements were problematic, which was not because they're measuring radiance, per se, but WHERE in the atmosphere the radiance is being measured.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

The point about a global cooling scare in the 1970's is unfounded. There were sensational articles written about the subject in the popular press. But, the overwhelming scientific position was predicting warming.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BA...

Johnny Pellin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (IRStuff)

Sophism by ignoring what Rconnor stated about why satellite measurements were problematic, which was not because they're measuring radiance, per se, but WHERE in the atmosphere the radiance is being measured.

No that is time constraints. I do not have the time to point by point. I simply commented on the first piece of sophism that jumped off the page. It was the first reason given in his list so obviously he considers it the most important. Now you are attempting to down play its significance because you know he is wrong in arguing that this is somehow unique to the satellite data set. A light-bulb just went off over your head 'Oh yeah thermometers dont directly measure temperature.' Everything we use is a proxy from which we infer temperature.

As to where, AGW theory dictates that the actual effect occurs in the upper troposphere. Any surface warming is an after effect of what is happening in the upper troposphere. So arguing that somehow surface measurements are superior to tropospheric measurements represents an absolute ignorance of true AGW theory. IF, surface warming is not following tropospheric warming then AGW cannot be the primary cause because theory dictates that the troposphere drives the surface. If the two are unconnected its time for a new explanation.

For more information read up on Gilbert Plass, spectral broadening, and water vapor feedback. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (JJPellin)

The point about a global cooling scare in the 1970's is unfounded. There were sensational articles written about the subject in the popular press. But, the overwhelming scientific position was predicting warming.

When doing a meta-analysis how do you downplay a scare? Simple you extend the survey period well beyond the scare. In your referenced study the authors simply engaged in a dishonest slight of hand. The actual global cooling scare was short lived, coinciding with the massive double dip 1974-1976 La Nina that had everyone screaming global ice age. By the late 70s the scare was over.

Your study authors who include the often banned from Wikipedia for repeated slander climate advocate William M. Connolley (you are already losing credibility) simply extended their survey period to well beyond the actual period to get the results they wanted. By extending the survey period from 1965 well before the scare, to 1983 well after the scare had ended, Mr. Connolley and the rest of the team was guaranteed to get the results they wanted.

If William M. Connolley cant meet the low ethical standards of Wikipedia what makes you think he has the ethics to do an honest analysis? This papers uses a rather obvious trick, if you bother to read it, to fool its readers. I'd expect nothing less from a man who has been banned from Wikipedia for poor ethics.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

GTTofAK,

You should have read the article more carefully. This was not simply a meta-analysis of the cumulative papers published or referenced. Figure 1 on Page 1333 clearly shows the number of papers published each year during this period. Even in the supposed scare years of 1974 to 1976, there were many more papers published in each and every year that were supportive of warming than were supportive of cooling. There was no scare. Only cherry picking of old articles makes it appears as if there was.

Johnny Pellin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
beej67,

Regarding the IPCC sensitivity estimate, again, you are correct that IPCC removed the “best estimate” from their conclusions and lowered the lower bound. However, you omit an very relevant statement from AR5 (my emphasis):

Quote (AR5)

…this change [to climate sensitivity] reflects the evidence from new studies of observed temperature change, using the extended records in atmosphere and ocean. These studies suggest a best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range. Note that these studies are not purely observational, because they require an estimate of the response to radiative forcing from models. In addition, the uncertainty in ocean heat uptake remains substantial. Accounting for short term variability in simple models remains challenging, and it is important not to give undue weight to any short time period that might be strongly affected by internal variability
Also note that the comment about OHC is very relevant to Durack et al 2014, which was released after Lewis and Curry 2014. Energy balance models are very sensitivity to OHC and Durack et al 2014 found that OHC had previously been underestimated. Applying the corrections of Durack et al 2014, Lewis and Curry 2014’s sensitivity estimates would increase by about ~15% (according to Gavin Schmidt of NASA).

Quote (beej67)

The science will not be settled on CO2 until the error bands for "highest probability" for CO2 ECS are narrowed to within probably half a degree. Lets pretend the science finally settles at error bands between 1.5 C and 2.0 C. In that case, the modeling would clearly show that CO2 is not the only anthropogenic source. That there are other anthropogenic sources as significant as CO2. And if that's the case, then CO2 mitigation measures, no matter what they happen to be, would not be good enough to stop warming.
Could you expand on this. To me, there are many unsupported jumps in reasoning here. I think it’s important to understand that climate sensitivity numbers do not represent what the future temperature rise will be, they represent the temperature rise at a doubling of CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels (i.e. at 560 ppm). So without mitigation measures, if CO2 concentrations keep on increasing, the planet will keep on warming. This is why the difference between using Lewis and Curry 2014 sensitivity estimates merely pushes the 2 deg C point out by a decade. Low sensitivity makes mitigation more manageable, it does not make it pointless.

Quote (beej67)

There are two ways to deal with the global warming that is clearly happening. Not one. We can try and find a way to stop it, or we can prepare to live on a warmer planet. Maybe we do a blend of both… That means that no amount of mitigation can stop it, only slow it down, so we need to be preparing to live on a warmer planet regardless of what we do with mitigation. And how much preparation vs how much mitigation goes back to ROI.
Absolutely we need both mitigation and adaptation. However, pure adaptation is much more costly than mitigation and adaptation. See the 6 papers I linked after “the most likely values are very negative (or a few more sources…” in my last post. AR5 WGII and WGIII are also great resources (also, WGIII SPM.4.2.4 might be of particular interest to you beej67). The “wait-and-see” mentality is a dangerous one in face of all the research coming out saying the longer we wait, the more drastic our mitigation efforts will need to be. See this new article in Science Magazine. There’s a good write up on the article found here.

Another important concept is that some aspects of climate change are not captured in an ROI. The best example is displaced people caused by changes in climate, whether it’s due to sea level rise or changes in local climate. Mass forced migration is never simple and the issues go so far beyond economic ones. There are very real and very difficult political, cultural and moral issues associated with mass forced migration (just ask Europe). A simple economic assessment is blind to these issues but policy makers shouldn’t be. Elon Musk recently made this same point.

Quote (beej67)

We can't do the proper cost calculations to properly set policy until we know exactly how much sea level rise we avert per pound of CO2 emissions we avoid
You never have 100% assurance of the future when you do risk assessment exercises, you know this. You always work off the likelihood of events happening and the possible impacts. Furthermore, when doing risk assessment exercises, uncertainty is not your friend. Especially when the vast majority of the science that comes out says it will likely be very problematic.

Quote (beej67)

It would seem to me that unless the scientific community is accounting for the storage terms of energy caught up in chemical bonds during photosynthesis, they're missing a very large energy balance term.
They do, see IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3 (I’m digging through AR5 to find the updated value) or Beltrami et al 2002. Continents absorb 2.1% of the energy imbalance. Now, this doesn’t break out photosynthesis from other methods of land-based absorption of energy but I hardly see the relevancy of needing it further sub-divided. Note this means that photosynthesis is <2.1% of the total absorption. So while possibly not trivial in magnitude, it certainly isn’t missing.

Furthermore, if “storage terms of energy caught up in chemical bonds during photosynthesis” were missing from the energy balance it would mean the energy imbalance is LARGER than originally thought as more energy would be trapped inside the system. This would mean the planet is more sensitivity to CO2 than previously believed. But seeing as it isn't missing, I really don’t care to discuss this topic.

Quote (beej67)

I simply can't find anything in the literature that talks about the storage of solar energy by plantlife as term in the overall energy budget. Now I admit I could be barking up one of many wrong trees here. And if I can find one study that says this storage term should be flat out neglected, and it's a solid study, I'd probably drop the question. But I can't find one.
Have you looked through AR5 WGI Chapter 6 – Carbon and Other Biochemical cycles or Charter 8 – Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing (specifically 8.3.5)? What about their 28 pages of combined references? You know that there might not be a single paper that answers your question but, rather, a series of papers, right? I just feel it's off topic here and don't want to drag the conversation too far down this tangent. The information is out there, I'd suggest spending some time reading up on it.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Yawn................

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

From the link suggested by SAITAETGrad (Link):

The very first comment about the course is interesting:
"Yes, what an utterly bizzare thing. I wanted to learn about climate change science. This course is about how to convince people of a thing you are certain about while assuming they are wrong, even though you do not really understand the thing yourself. It seems more like an evangelizing seminar than anyting related to science...I guess if your job is debating science you don't understand, good for you. I just want to learn the facts, not be convinced without them."

And this is what's it become. The religious right (no matter the religion) try to say their book is the truth. The Climate Change people try to say their 'book' is the truth. They call anyone who doesn't believe heritics, deniers, etc...

It's interesting that a scientist who is a skeptic of the now famous Mann hockey stick graph is being sued by Mann himself. Someone merely questions the data, and how it was gathered, and they get sued.

And just this summer, a US Senator is suggesting to use RICO laws against Climate Change skeptics.

It's a way to silence the discussion. Skeptics will stop discussing for fear of legal action. Reminds me of speaking with Tibetans and Cubans and what their Gov'ts have done...

And why does the OP put skeptics in quotes? Just another way to diminish those who don't believe in the Gospel.

The one thing GW scientist have on their side: Can't prove a negative.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

From Rconnors Durack et al 2014

Quote (Nature)

Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low.

Yep more reanalysis. Model results being sold as actual data. When the data doesn't agree with you simply pretend model results are data. Alarmist scientists will always have a retort because science media is so ignorant that they cant tell the difference between data and models. Ocean heat content not doing what you want it to do? Simply pretend model runs are actual data problem solved.

Very few people actaully know what reanalysis is. So alarmist scientists can easily parse words to make their model runs sound like actual observations. Didn't expect Rconnor to understand what Durak et. al. actually was. Trust but verify.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Looks like other political debates. You don't get good answers from those on the far left or far right.

Then the personal attacks start to happen.

Just give me what you are proposing to do about it, the cost, and how you intend to pay for the cost. Then give me the options that can reduce the costs.
Then as part of the public I will make my own decision.

Many of us don't want the big hand of government shoving things at us. I mean what next, a 55 MPH speed limit so our cars will operate at the most efficient speed?

If the data set is too complicated for me to understand, then it can't be believed.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (cranky108)

If the data set is too complicated for me to understand, then it can't be believed.

I think that quite adequately sums up the problem we have with the voting populace in this country.

I wonder... do your customers understand your calculations or analysis reports?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (Cranky108)

If the data set is too complicated for me to understand, then it can't be believed.

You realize that this is an engineering forum. Most of what "climate science" does isn't that complicated. TYou might call climate science a repository for the less gifted minds. The smarter students tend to go into other fields like Engineering, mathematics, chemistry. Climate science seems to get the refuse. Top of the bottom bottom of the top if you will.

I'd put my money on the intellect of 100 random engineers up against 100 random climate scientists any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

GTTofAK: put "intellect" up against actually being educated in and having fully read the literature related to a particular area of study, and I'll choose the latter, thanks. Science does suffer from "groupthink" from time to time, but it is remarkably able to self-correct.


RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Could you expand on this. To me, there are many unsupported jumps in reasoning here. I think it’s important to understand that climate sensitivity numbers do not represent what the future temperature rise will be, they represent the temperature rise at a doubling of CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels (i.e. at 560 ppm).

Yeah, and when estimates for that swing by a factor of 3, it vastly impacts the ROI of mitigation vs preparation vs some blend of both, policy-wise. You cannot establish policy without a model that reliably predicts the effects of that policy.

My program at Georgia Tech built the Hydrologic Decision Support System for the Nile River Basin. The very short story of that, was that all the countries bordering the Nile were about ready to bomb each other over water management, because nobody could agree on what the effects of certain policies were. Conversations would go like this: "We aught to be able to irrigate as much as we want out of Lake Victoria, because it won't affect your water Egypt." "Yes it will." "No it won't." (someone throws a chair)

We put together a very detailed basin model, through which all the countries could try different policies in theory, so they could know exactly what the results would be from a particular policy. The model must be predictive, or it is useless in crafting policy.

IPCC AR5 can't even agree what the "do nothing" case is. "It could be 1.5 degrees centigrade increase per doubling, or, you know, it could be something like triple that." That is not predictive. And until it's predictive, it's useless for crafting policy.

Quote:

You never have 100% assurance of the future when you do risk assessment exercises, you know this. You always work off the likelihood of events happening and the possible impacts. Furthermore, when doing risk assessment exercises, uncertainty is not your friend. Especially when the vast majority of the science that comes out says it will likely be very problematic.

Yeah no kidding. That's why we have to get the ECS right before we go off making policy changes that have the potential to stunt or destroy third world economies.

Thanks for linking the storage term information. I'll read through it. You're backwards on this though:

Quote:

Furthermore, if “storage terms of energy caught up in chemical bonds during photosynthesis” were missing from the energy balance it would mean the energy imbalance is LARGER than originally thought as more energy would be trapped inside the system. This would mean the planet is more sensitivity to CO2 than previously believed.

No. It would mean that the loss of vegetative mass associated with land cover change from human expansion would cause less solar energy to be stored and interned into the earth itself, and less stored means anthropogenic land cover changes put more into the measurable environment. It would mean that anthropogenic warming had more than the one source IPCC claims, and a model calibrated to one source might be in truth representing warming from both sources.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Your link just talked about storage of sensible heat and latent heat, not about energy storage in chemical bonds.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"... (someone throws a chair)" ... only a chair, you're doing well.

"We put together a very detailed basin model, through which all the countries could try different policies in theory, so they could know exactly what the results would be from a particular policy." ... really? your model could predict "exactly" what would happen ?? at best your model may be a neutral representation of the real world and may respond fairly to the different proposals. Worse, the model unwittingly (or possibly wittingly, smile) favoured one proposal. Worst case is the model didn't predict well, and the consequences were dire, and someone in the desert got skrewed, and maybe GT got sued too ? (or possibly worse ??)

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

No. It would mean that the loss of vegetative mass associated with land cover change from human expansion would cause less solar energy to be stored and interned into the earth itself, and less stored means anthropogenic land cover changes put more into the measurable environment.
If change in the energy absorbed by photosynthesis was (1) significant, (2) increased “available” energy is then absorbed by the “measurable environment” and (3) missing from the energy balance currently than this would be extra energy on top of the current CO2 energy imbalance, not in place of it. So even if you manage to demonstrate those three factors (which you need to do first), you can only conclude that climate change will be worse than previously thought because, in addition to the CO2 imbalance, we also have extra energy being released from the vegetal mass. Now, I don’t believe that all three of the factors are true but even if they were, it certainly wouldn’t help your main argument.

Luckily, your idea does not appear to be at all correct because all three factors are either untrue or very questionable. The Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses absorb ~3,850,000 EJ/year from solar energy, while only 3,000 EJ/year is absorbed by photosynthesis (source) or 0.08% of the total energy absorbed (i.e. insignificant). But it’s worse, 0.08% is the total absorbed by photosynthesis, so we are talking about a fraction of 0.08%. Let’s say we reduce half the world’s biomass (which is crazy), that means we are talking about 0.04% of the total energy absorbed by the planet (i.e. extremely insignificant). To put this in perspective, OHC has increased by 11,111 EJ/year from 2005 to 2014 (source). So even if, magically, we destroyed every plant, tree and blade of grass on the planet in a year, the “extra” energy, now not absorbed by photosynthesis, would amount to ~1/4 of the energy absorbed by the oceans for that year alone (and I highly doubt the extra energy would be our biggest problem in that situation).

The second factor requires that all of the “extra” available energy would be absorbed by the “measurable environment” (i.e. atmosphere, ice sheets, oceans). Decreasing biomass coverage increases the albedo (AR5 WGI 8.3.5), which means some of the “extra” energy, now not absorbed by photosynthesis, would not be absorbed but reflected back to space. So now we are talking about a fraction of 0.04%. So while factor two may not be completely false, it further demonstrates how completely irrelevant it is.

The third factor, that it currently isn’t factored into the energy balance, I believe is untrue. As far as I can tell, the solar energy “absorbed” by the surface includes photosynthesis as well as other factors (source). Furthermore, most of the energy “trapped” by photosynthesis is released shortly after (dies and rots or gets eaten, etc.), so it’s not really a missing term at all, it just gets transformed into other terms. But even if it were true that photosynthesis isn’t included, we are still talking about a fraction of 0.04%. And that’s assuming we remove 50% of the Earth’s biomass.

Changes in energy storage by photosynthesis are irrelevant compared to the energy imbalanced observed on the planet today. There is no way that changes in photosynthesis could be responsible for climate change. Despite it being off-topic, despite you, rather arrogantly, proclaiming that climate science was wrong and your idea was right, despite you having done, seemingly, no research prior to making these claims, I still took the time to do all the research for you…and your idea turned out to be completely irrelevant (as I stated from the beginning).

Again beej67, you need to realize that mitigation measures already require substantial decreases in deforestation, and more likely reforestation. So we are somewhat, if not accidently, on the same page.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Interesting note, Solar panels change the albedo of the area they are installed, so is installing solar panels in the south west actually increasing a warming trend?
Any studies on that?

And maybe changing the albedo of our living areas is an answer. Start with changing your home roof color to white.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor

You say that

Quote (Rconnor)

3) The Newest Data Continues to Undermine the “Pause”

And you then proceed to reference Karl et. al. as the "new data". Karl et. al. isn't new data but a new adjustment. Is it not disingenuous to call an adjustment to the data data.

I'd further like to hear how you justify Karl's approach of adjusting good data up to match bad data. Would not the correct method be to adjust the bad data down to match the good data? Of course such an adjustment wouldn't get rid of the pause. It would simply increase the 1976-2001 warming trend. The choice of adjusting good buoy data to match bad ship intake data seems to be done for the express purpose of eliminating the pause and not correcting error caused by ship intake heat.

You say you dont want to start a Karl flame war but sadly most of your argument is dependent on Karl et. al. being correct. Any statistical analysis done on the NCDC and GISS data sets that use the Karl adjustment are dependent on that adjustment being correct. You simply cant ignore it. A scientific paper does not stand alone. It is dependent on all the others it directly or indirectly uses. Any statistical analysis of the GISS and NCDC/NOAA datasets are dependent on the accuracy and legitimacy of the Karl adjustment.

I hypothesize that hte reason you dont want to get in a discussion over Karl is you know prima fascia that it is very hard to defend adjusting good data to match bad data. So you would rather hope to avoid such a discussion.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
---Part 2: Does the “pause” suggest that climate models are wrong/climate sensitivity is lower than expected?---
In Part 1 we discussed the physics and statistics surrounding the “pause”. It was demonstrated that:
  • OHC has continued to rise by a large amount while solar activity has been dwindling, demonstrating that the radiative imbalance is still present
  • ENSO has played a very large role in the apparent lower trends as of late. When comparing ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years, there is a steady warming trend throughout the “pause”
  • New data, including 2014 and 2015 temperatures and updated research, demonstrates that the warming is larger than appeared a few years back
  • Statistically speaking, the "pause" never existed
This clearly demonstrates that the “pause” does not, in any way, suggest that climate change has stopped nor does it suggest that climate change may not be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, this does not directly address concerns that temperature outputs from climate models have been higher than observed temperatures as of late. As sensitivity estimates that stem from climate models are important to understanding the extent of future warming, the subject is very important within climate change discussions. However, as with most topics in climate change, many people have a limited understanding of the situation and lack critical context , often developed by reading blogs of non-experts rather than reading peer-reviewed papers from experts.

In Part 2 we will incorporate the information discussed in Part 1 to provide necessary context to examine and compare model outputs and observed temperatures. The post will be broken out into the following sections: 1) how models handle internal variability, 2) using updated research, how have models compared to observations, 3) are models/sensitivity estimates wrong?.

1) How Models Handle Internal Variability
As demonstrated in Part 1, internal variability can have a large impact on short-term trends. ENSO played a huge part in the appearance of a “pause” (and it is only an appearance) but so did volcanic activity and solar activity. So, prior to comparing models to observations, it’s essential to understand how models incorporate these factors and what influence they would have on the outputs.

A) ENSO
Let’s start with ENSO, which is by far the strongest factor during this period. Currently, we have no ability to predict ENSO events outside of a few months ahead (and even at that, we can still be surprised). So, in models, ENSO events are treated as stochastic (Kleeman and Moore 1997, Kleeman and Moore 1998). Different model runs will develop different ENSO states at different years depending on how they simulate trade winds for that year. One run will have an El Nino in 2016, neutral in 2017 and a La Nina in 2018 while another might be neutral in all three years. Therefore, while no model is trying to estimate ENSO events correctly, some runs will, accidently, match up with observed states while others will not.

This begs the very sensible question, “Does this not significantly impact long-term projections?" (note: the question, “Could it be that the 20th century warming was due to ENSO?” shares the same answer and same reason for that answer). Drawing on the research and data surrounding ENSO, the answer is no, ENSO does not appear to have a significant impact on long-term projections, nor does it have the ability to impact long-term temperature trends. To figure out why, I’d encourage readers to review my post on this subject at 12 Feb 15 23:45 of this thread. Below is a brief rundown of the points made in that post but for more details and supporting references, please see the original post:
  • ENSO is episodic
  • ENSO is roughly cyclical
  • ENSO has no notable long-term increase in the intensity of El Nino’s or La Nina’s
  • ENSO has had no notable long-term impact on pre-industrial temperature trends
  • ENSO is not a driver of changes in climate
  • ENSO only causes surface temperature to temporarily deviate from the “average”, it does not impact the “average”
  • ENSO does not significantly impact the TOA energy balance
  • ENSO has no inherent mechanism that could have a major impact on long-term trends
Furthermore, while ENSO can dominate year-to-year variability, we already can see that the underlying warming trend caused by CO2 dominates the variability of ENSO in the long-term. The 1995 El Nino was colder than any 21st century La Nina year (and colder than any 21st century year).

So while ENSO does not have the ability to impact long-term temperature trends and therefore does not impact long-term temperature projections, it does significantly impact short-term trends and short-term projections. Short-term trends will be impacted by the imposed year-to-year variability, as discussed in Part 1. Short-term projections will be impacted by the fact that the “average” model run is somewhere closer to an ENSO neutral state. This is why comparing short-term trends against the “average” model run is foolish. You aren’t comparing apples to apples. For a better comparison, you need compare runs that accurately captured the ENSO states for the short-term time period. Two such papers looked at this, Risbey et al 2014, which compared models that matched the observed ENSO state with observed temperatures, and Kosaka and Xie 2013, which used observed Pacific Ocean states as an input to a model and then compared with observed temperatures. Both find the agreement was quite good. Below is a graph from Kosaka and Xie 2013 (Purple Line – HIST – model output temperature if assuming ENSO neutral years (similar to the “average” model run), Red Line – POGA-H – model output temperature matching pacific ocean states to oberservations, Black Line – Observations – NASA GISS temperature data):


B) Volcanoes
Like ENSO, volcanic activity is unpredictable. Models do not try to predict volcanic activity (even indirectly). This is a non-issue as volcanic activity has only a temporary impact of ~2 years. They do, however, allow climate scientists to test the dynamic response of climate models to rapid, mass injections of aerosols. So, in hindcasts, volcanic aerosol data is used as an input for climate models (Taylor et al 2012). Models do quite well at reproducing global temperatures during large volcanic events (such as Pinatubo 1992). At this point, I think it’s important to point out that parameterization in climate models is not done to match global temperatures. Parameterization is done to better simulate the physics of the sub-process. As indicated in Mauritsen et al 2012, “The MPI-ESM was not tuned to better fit the 20th Century. In fact, we only had the capability to run the full 20th Century simulation according to the CMIP5-protocol after the point in time when the model was frozen.”

In forecasting, volcanic aerosols (by way of stratospheric aerosol optical depth, SAOD) were assumed to be negligible past 2000 and thus set to zero in models (AR5 WGI Box TS.3). However, subsequent research has indicated that this assumption may not be valid. Solomon et al 2011, Santer et al 2014 and Ridley et al 2014 demonstrate that, since 2005, there has been a non-trivial increase in SAOD caused by smaller volcanic events.

By omitting the rise in SAOD, models have, incorrectly, ignored the cooling impact of smaller volcanic events since 2005. This would lead models to read warmer than they should over this period. See Ridley et al 2014 Figure 3, below, for a graphical representation of this issue. Correcting for this error would bring models more in-line with observations (without adjusting any major elements of models that would impact sensitivity).

Fig. 3 - (a) Estimated global mean radiative forcing is shown for datasets from Sato et al. (orange), Vernier et al. (blue) and AERONET mean (black) with 25th to 75th percentile range (grey). The dotted line indicates the baseline model used in many climate model studies to date, which includes no stratospheric aerosol changes after 2000.
(b) The temperature anomaly, relative to the baseline model, including the AERONET mean (black), median (white), and 25th to 75th percentile range (grey), Vernier et al. (blue), and Sato et al. (orange) forcing computed for each dataset
(c) the total global temperature change predicted by the Bern 2.5cc EMIC in response to combined anthropogenic and natural forcing, including the reduced warming when considering the stratospheric aerosol forcing from the three datasets.”

C) Solar
While the 11-year solar cycle is very repeatable and therefore predictable, longer-term variance in solar activity is not. Recently, the maximums of the 11-year cycle have been lower than expected and the minimums have lasted longer than predicted in models (solar activity since 1950). Research shows the impact is small; Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 found the cooling sun was responsible for -0.014 deg C per decade from 1979 to 2010 and Lean and Rind 2008 found an impact of -0.004 deg C per decade from 1979 to 2005. But it does provide a slight warming bias to model projections.

Again, the long-term impact is rather unimportant. Changes in solar activity are simply not large enough to significantly impact long-term trends amidst the much stronger forcing of increased CO2 levels. Even if we were to enter a new Grand Solar Minimum, it could not significant impact and certainly would not revise global warming (1). Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010 concluded that if, somehow (i.e. magically), we were stuck in a Grand Solar Minimum, it would only reduce 2100 temperature by 0.26 deg C, compared to 3.7 deg C (A1B) or 4.5 deg C (A2) of total warming.


As discussed in Part 1, ENSO, volcanic activity and solar activity have all had an impact on temperature trends during the first part of the 21st century but due to their random nature, their impact was not captured in models. This will impact model vs. observed temperature comparisons. It is important to note that models were never designed to predict these events nor were models ever intended on perfectly matching all short-term trends. However, these events do not have a significant impact on long-term trends, which is what models are designed to project. In the case of ENSO and volcanoes, the effects are too short-lived to impact long-term trends. In the case of Solar (and ENSO, for that matter), the effects are too weak to impact long-term trends. More importantly, while all of these natural events have added a short-term cooling effect to global temperatures, they do not impact CO2 sensitivity estimates. Therefore, if updating models with the proper natural forcings corrects most of the difference between model outputs and observations, then we can conclude that the “pause” does not put sensitivity estimates into question nor does it proves models are significantly flawed.

2) Incorporating Up-to-Date Research into Model/Observation Comparisons
As outlined in Part 1, there has been a lot of new research published in the past two years that is extremely relevant to understanding the “pause” (in fact, it completely eliminates the “pause” as a discernible change in temperature trends). This research is perhaps more important when comparing model outputs and observed temperatures during the “pause”.

In the previous section, we examined various natural events that have lead to a short-term cooling effect that were not captured in climate models. Schmidt et al 2014 looked at these factors and used the new research to update natural forcings in models. They then compared the up-to-date models with observations.

The effects of ENSO were outlined in Kosaka and Xie 2013. The effects of volcanic aerosols were discussed in Santer et al 2014 and Ridley et al 2014. However, Ridley et al 2014 was published after Schmidt et al 2014, so Santer et al 2014 and Vernier et al 2011 was used (note: Vernier et al 2011 was heavily used by Santer and Ridley). On top of natural aerosols, Schmidt et al 2014 updated anthropogenic aerosols as well, using Shindell et al 2013 and Bellouin et al 2011. Solar forcing were updated based on Lean 2009.

However, it wasn’t just models that required updates. Observed temperature data sets were also improved with up-to-date research. As discussed in Part 1, the coverage of most temperature data sets is very sparse in the Arctic, where warming is the most severe. This means that most temperature data sets underestimate the warming. Cowtan and Way 2013 (2014 updated) used kriging to improve the coverage of HadCRUT. Schmidt et al 2014 incorporated these changes.

Incorporating the updated research, Schmidt et al 2014 provided a much more accurate comparison between model outputs and observations. Note that none of the changes applied to the models impact the climate sensitivity nor do they affect how CO2 would interact with the climate nor do they affect any parameterization within the models. The improvements purely correct the random natural variances of ENSO, volcanic activity and solar activity to match with observations. None of these have the ability to impact the trends in the long-term. The results of Schmidt et al 2014 are illustrated below:


But Schmidt et al 2014 was not the only paper to look into this issue. Huber and Knutti 2014 also used the latest research (at the time) to perform an updated model/observation comparison. Again, nothing related to parameterization nor anything impacting CO2 sensitivity estimates was changed. They concluded:

Quote (Huber and Knutti 2014)

We conclude that there is little evidence for a systematic overestimation of the temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the CMIP5 ensemble

(Dashed Yellow Line – previous model mean, Solid Yellow Line – updated model mean, Solid Black Line – HadCRUT, Dashed Black Line – HadCRUT with Cowtan and Way 2013 kriging)

Yet we know from Part 1 that since Schmidt et al 2014 and Huber and Knutti 2014 were released, even more data and research has come out. Karl et al 2015 included adjustments to NOAA NCEI/NCDC data set, which was not used in either study. It should be noted that Karl et al 2015 lowered long-term trends in NOAA NCEI but increased trends since 1998. So despite all the noise surrounding Karl et al 2015, it actually does very little to impact the model/observation comparison. However, complete 2014 and 2015 (to date) data is very relevant to the conversion. Gavin Schmidt (of Schmidt et al 2014) has updated his analysis using 2014 and 2015 data (to June). The image below represents perhaps the most complete and up-to-date comparison out there.


Lastly, new research has been published that corrects a (rather obvious) error in past model/observation comparisons. Cowtan et al 2015 pointed out that model temperature outputs commonly seen are surface air temperatures while observed temperature data sets are a blend of surface air temperatures and sea surface temperatures. This means that model/observation comparisons, such as in AR5, are not really comparing the same thing. As sea surface temperatures are cooler than surface air temperatures, this will lead to an inherent, but artificial, disagreement. The study concluded that this issue accounted for 38% of the discrepancy in trend between models and observations. As you see, where you take the measurements can greatly change the results and thus. (Hence why using satellite temperature data sets, which calculate the temperature somewhere around 5km above the surface, is not appropriate when comparing against model outputs at the surface.)

3) Are Models/Sensitivity Estimates Wrong?
When attempting to determine whether climate models, and therefore sensitivity estimates, are accurate, context is everything. Both Part 1 and Part 2 (up to this point) were all about providing that context. The length and detail contained therein speaks to the fact that these questions are not as straight forward as many people think. The major take-aways are the following:
  • Natural variability can significantly impact short-term trends. Over the recent period (1998-2013), natural variability has had a temporary cooling impact. However, none of these factors will have a significant impact on long-term trends.
  • Climate models are designed for long-term projections where short-term noise cancels out or becomes irrelevant. Care should be taken when reviewing short-term trends.
  • Climate models do not attempt to accurately estimate year-to-year ENSO states or volcanic activity. Again, this has no significant impact on their long-term projections but does impact short-term projections.
  • Comparison of short-term trends is only applicable if natural variability is accounted for. Otherwise, you are asking models to do something they were never designed or intended to do.
Therefore, when someone looks at model projections versus observations and notices that, since 2005, observations are on the low end of model runs (see AR5 SPM Figure 1.4), it would be wrong to conclude that models are flawed or sensitivity estimates are overestimated. You must first examine the impact natural variability has had on that period. The fact that natural variability has had a cooling effect during that period means that it makes complete sense that observations would sit on the lower end of the model range. Note that the opposite is true as well – 1998 was an anomalously hot year (due to ENSO) and sits near the upper end of the model range. So, not only are observations not outside the range of model runs, they sit where you’d expect them to sit given the state of natural variability over that period.

The next step would be to simulate the model run with the observed state for ENSO, volcanic activity and solar activity input into the model. By doing this, you can determine whether the discrepancy is due to natural variability or something else, and more important to long-term projections, like parameterization or CO2 sensitivity. Schmidt et al 2014 and Huber and Knutti 2014 are two examples of this. Both of them demonstrate that when you correct for things that models were never intended to predict in the short-term (ENSO, volcanic activity, etc.), models agree with observations extremely well. Therefore, the recent discrepancy between models and observations can be attributed to short-term variability that models were never designed to predict and not due to some fundamental issue related to the physics, parameterization or CO2 sensitivity estimates. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, what this analysis demonstrates is that the underlying physics, parameterization and CO2 sensitivity estimates are quite accurate.

Part 2 Conclusion (TL;DR)
A proper analysis of model outputs versus observed temperatures during the “pause” demonstrates that:
  • The time period is too short to draw any conclusions (1)
  • Models have NOT failed to predict temperature trends. Even without correcting for the short-term noise, observations sit within the range of model runs (exactly where you’d expect given the short-term cooling bias). (1, 2, 3, 4)
  • The minor, short-term deviation is caused by effects that are inherently not predictable (ENSO, volcanic activity, solar activity and anthropogenic aerosols) and not issues related to the underlying physics, parameterization or anything impacting CO2 sensitivity estimates . (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
  • When these effects are accounted for, model trends match observed temperature trends remarkably well. This provides more assurance that the underlying physics, parameterization and CO2 sensitivity estimates, which were unchanged, are accurate within the range of models. (1, 2, 3)
Thus, every time someone says something along the lines of “models have failed to predict temperature trends, therefore the theory is wrong”, there argument is 1) inconclusive and insignificant, 2) fundamentally and demonstrably false, 3) a non-sequitur and 4) actually validates the antithesis are its original assertion. As statements like that are central to the “skeptic” position, we begin to understand why that position is not all that skeptical. When you take the time to understand the science, the research, the data and the context that surrounds it (as any proper skeptic would), rather than eye-ball a small section of the data and come to a convenient conclusion (as a “skeptic” would do), two things become very clear:
  • The “pause” does not, in any way, suggest that climate change has stopped nor does it suggest that climate change may not be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
  • The discrepancy between model outputs and temperature observations during the “pause” does not suggest that climate models are flawed nor does it suggest that climate sensitivity is lower than expected. In fact, a proper analysis of the “pause” period provides more support that the underlying physics, parameterization and climate sensitivity estimates are accurate within the range of models.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (Rconnor)

OHC has continued to rise by a large amount while solar activity has been dwindling, demonstrating that the radiative imbalance is still present

Says a model not actual the data. You just dont know what a reanalysis is. Here is what actual experts say about such reanalysis

Quote:

Wunsch and Heimbach (2013) wrote, “clear warnings have appeared in the literature—that spurious trends and values are artifacts of changing observation systems (see, e.g., Elliott and Gaffen, 1991; Marshall et al., 2002; Thompson et al., 2008)—the reanalysis are rarely used appropriately, meaning with the recognition that they are subject to large errors

Do you get that?

Quote (Rconnor)

When comparing ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years, there is a steady warming trend throughout the “pause”

How so your garaphic doesn't show that.



There are clearly only 3 "ENSO neutral years" in the pause according your graphic, firs that isn't a large enough sample to say anything. 2nd there appears to be no such trend.

Quote (Rconnor)

New data, including 2014 and 2015 temperatures and updated research, demonstrates that the warming is larger than appeared a few years back

You keep saying "new data" adjustments to old data is not new data. Validity of Karl et. al. or not this continued instance by you to call an adjustment new data is insulting and disingenuous.

Quote (Rconnor)

Statistically speaking, the "pause" never existed

After you throw out the satellite dataset because

Quote (Rconnor)

Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.

This just shows right off the start of your long winded post that you dont really know what you are talking about because all thermometers infer temperature from some proxy, be it thermal expansion of liquid, or impedance of metal. You were wrong. You were blatantly wrong to a level that would disqualify you from any further credibility, on anything engineering related were you testifying as an expert. Seriously how does an ME not know how thermometers work? You still refuse to say "ooops" because so much of your argument is appeal to authority. You cant be wrong. You write this long diatribe of cherry picked studies and data sets, most of which you misrepresent like calling adjustments and model reanalysis "data", yet you dont even know how a thermometer works?

Please lol.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2

Quote (RConnor)


ENSO is episodic
ENSO is roughly cyclical
ENSO has no notable long-term increase in the intensity of El Nino’s or La Nina’s
ENSO has had no notable long-term impact on pre-industrial temperature trends
ENSO is not a driver of changes in climate
ENSO only causes surface temperature to temporarily deviate from the “average”, it does not impact the “average”
ENSO does not significantly impact the TOA energy balance
ENSO has no inherent mechanism that could have a major impact on long-term trends

Please we cannot even model the ENSO. We know so little about it nothing you listed here as fact is fact. As Dr. Curry noted we are currently playing catch up with the ENSO because the pigs at the trough climate alarmists have diverted most climate funding to AGW that we know so little about eh earths actual cycles. What you clam the ENSO is and isn't are simply assumptions that fit with your predetermined view. Its pure hyperbole sold as a scientific analysis. When we an accuracy model the ENSO then you can say what it is and isn't. Until then you are guessing. You cant argue what the ENSO does and does not do based on models that do not work.

Lets just take this one that I destroyed the last time you tried to argue these false assumptions

Quote (Rconnor)

ENSO does not significantly impact the TOA energy balance

It looks to me that during the current La Nina phase it has significantly affected the outgoing short wave radiation.



You couldn't respond in that thread and you wont respond now because you dont care if what you said is true or not. You simply want it to be true. Yo say it doesn't effect TOA but the data sure as hell suggests it does. Maybe a reanalysis of the data is in order. That seems to be the go to scam these days. Who needs actual data when you can do a reanalysis and call model output data.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@rconnor,
I apologise 'cause I didn't do justice to your long post. I stopped at the last figure for your ENSO analysis. you don't see a difference between the purple (model) line and the black (obs.) line ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Note I have edited Part 2 to include Cowtan et al 2015 which I forgot to include the first time. It’s very relevant research to the topic.

rb1957, no worries, I understand it’s long. However, I feel it’s all important information to being able to properly understand the subject. You’re welcome to read the conclusion at the end if the post is too long for you.

As to your question, you’re talking about Kosaka and Xie 2013, correct? If so, yes I see the difference, so did the authors. In fact, it’s the entire point of the paper. There’s a difference between the purple line (model) and black line (observations) but when you input the observed state of the Pacific (i.e. ENSO state) and change nothing else, you get the red line (POGA-H) which matches the black line (observations) very well. This suggest that the discrepancy between models and observations is not due to overestimations of CO2 sensitivity in models but short-term internal variability.

If I misunderstood your intent, please clarify.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

It occurred to me last night the Rconnor is using a rather clever trick, clever for him that unlike many of his other tricks it took a whole day for it to occur to me normally his tricks are plainly obvious.

Rconnor begins his long diatribe of cherry picked studies by first throwing out all evidence the disagrees with his predetermined conclusion. He throws out all the satellite data sets because he doesn't know how a thermometer works. However, he still has no trouble using satellites for other things like TOA. Never expected consistency from a committed zealot.

However despite throwing out the satellite data sets because he doesn't know how a thermometer works Rconnor still sets uses the satellite data sets to define the pause.

Take his anlaysis of the ENSO

Quote (RCONNOR)

When comparing ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years, there is a steady warming trend throughout the “pause”


Notice something fishy? Well there is no trend during "the pause" if we defined as what we see in the surface record which start in the early 2000s depending on which surface data set you use.

No Rconnor extends his analysis all the way back to the mid 90s. The only data sets that have a pause that extend back that far are the satellite datasets.

[img http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1996.7/...]

You would think that because Rconnor has declared that he will not be using the satellites because he doesn't know how a thermometer works Rconnor would put his time frame around the surface record. But no Rconnor has no trouble using the the satellite's time frame and applying that time frame to surface measurements so long as it increases his trend. Rconnor likes to pull many tricks but I have to hand it to him on this one. This little deceit was actually pretty good. I didn't catch it right away. 'I'm not going to use the satellite datasets but I'm still going to set my time frame to the satellites to get better trends' is a rather subtle deception that even the best scam detectors might not catch.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

If change in the energy absorbed by photosynthesis was (1) significant, (2) increased “available” energy is then absorbed by the “measurable environment” and (3) missing from the energy balance currently than this would be extra energy on top of the current CO2 energy imbalance, not in place of it. So even if you manage to demonstrate those three factors (which you need to do first), you can only conclude that climate change will be worse than previously thought because, in addition to the CO2 imbalance, we also have extra energy being released from the vegetal mass. Now, I don’t believe that all three of the factors are true but even if they were, it certainly wouldn’t help your main argument.

Umm, no.

We already know how much climate change we've had. We have records. If we discovered that there were additional drivers for how much climate change we've already had, then that would not mean that we've magically had more climate change. It would mean that the climate change we've already had was a combination of the terms we knew before and the terms we recently discovered. It would mean some of it was due to CO2 and some of it was due to (other stuff). Which means less of it so far has been due to CO2 than you presume when you presume that all of it is due to CO2.

That you can't seem to even understand that, tells me you're lost in the weeds and failing to see the bigger picture.

Quote (rconnor)

Decreasing biomass coverage increases the albedo (AR5 WGI 8.3.5)

Yeah, this is the bit that claims a concrete tennis court and dense tree canopy have the same net effect on the global climate, and paving over the entire planet in a carbon neutral fashion would cool us off. They are missing something. Take that to the bank.

Quote (rconnor)

Again beej67, you need to realize that mitigation measures already require substantial decreases in deforestation, and more likely reforestation. So we are somewhat, if not accidently, on the same page.

Not if the IPCC AR5 is correct. They seem to think that deforesting the entire planet would cool us off. Read your own link. At least they do admit this:

Quote (IPCC)

there is low agreement on the sign of the net change in global mean temperature as a result of land use change. {8.3.5}

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@rconnor,
yes, we were talking about the same graph. For me the red line is close to meaningless since it is the purple line "retuned" in some manner to better follow observations, and so it follows observations better.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
beej67, ok, what your saying is that past changes in the amount of energy stored in photosynthesis, caused by deforestation/land use changes, is responsible for a significant portion of global warming. Correct?

The very first litmus test you must perform is to demonstrate that the amount of energy is in the ball park of being significant. The entire biosphere absorbs 3,000 EJ/year through photosynthesis. That’s 0.08% of the total energy absorbed by the planet. Right away, your idea is dead in the water. But, it becomes even more absurd when you start digging into it more. What percentage of the total biomass have we destroyed? It’s much less than 100%, so we are talking about much less than 0.08%.

While we should stop there, we can go even further. The next question needs to be where does the “extra” energy, now not stored in photosynthesis go? Again, some of this energy would likely be reflected back to space and not absorbed by the “measureable earth”. So not only are we talking about fractions of 0.08% but we are talking about fractions of fractions of 0.08%. I’m sorry but your guess was wrong; changes in energy stored by photosynthesis cannot be responsible for a significant portion of global warming.

On top of all of this, I’m still not convinced the term is “missing” in the energy balance. I certainly could research this more to find out but when we are talking about fractions of fractions of 0.08%, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. It's like when you said that nuclear bomb detonations could have been responsible for a portion of the warming since 1950 (5 May 14 19:53) and both TGS4 (10 May 14 02:42) and I (6 May 14 11:53) told you it was ridiculously insignificant. Rather than proclaiming your idea relevant and in some cases superior to the current climate science, please save us all the trouble and do the basic litmus tests first.

rb1957, not true. Taking a necessary step back when people say “climate models are wrong” the relevant point they are hoping to make is “CO2 sensitivity estimates are wrong, therefore the planet won’t warm as much as we thought”. None of the studies listed above change the underlying physics nor the parameterization nor anything that would impact CO2 sensitivity estimates. Nor do any of the changes impact long-term projections. This is perhaps a point that you missed because it was included further down in my post, but it is a very important one.

So, if you correct for the proper ENSO state and the model had a worse match or a non-improved match, then you’d have to conclude that the discrepancy is likely due to something else and possibly something significant to CO2 sensitivity. However, repeatedly (and I referenced a number of studies), when climate scientists correct for natural variability the models have a much improved match with observations. This suggests that the short-term discrepancy is most likely due to natural variability (that models were never designed to get predict) and not an issue with the underlying physics. This is far from meaningless.

I'll note here that I'm not saying the underlying physics in models is perfect. We certainly have a lot to build upon. The representation of the climate in models can (and very likely will) be improved. However, as the new research comes in, it continues to support the same common answer - if we continue to emit CO2 at the rate we are currently going at, the global temperature will rise substantially. (and, conversely, if we limit the amount of CO2 we emit, the global temperature will not rise as much.)

As has been demonstrated and supported by a vast amount of research, a comparison between models and observations during the "pause" does not put that conclusion into question in the slightest. In fact, it provides further support for it.

Let me know if I can clarify more.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

beej67, ok, what your saying is that past changes in the amount of energy stored in photosynthesis, caused by deforestation/land use changes, is responsible for a significant portion of global warming. Correct?

I'm saying that there is no damn way the land cover changes caused by mankind during our population explosion have cooled the earth on their own. There is just no way. The IPCC have that backwards, somehow, some way. Stored energy in carbon bonds due to photosynthesis being interned into the earth was just one of the many ways I brewed up to possibly explain it, but if that's not it, then it's something else. They're missing something.

The IPCC thinks if you paved every forest on earth you'd cool the earth down. And that's just not right. It's not right. Especially when we can look at IR maps from satellites and tell where human activity is on the planet just from that.

Go read 8.3.5 closely. They are doing something wrong if they think adding tree cover heats the planet, and removing tree cover cools it. Maybe, and I mean maybe, up in the northern tundra where snow albedo is a big deal. But not on a wider scale. Current IPCC thinking is that if we went totally carbon neutral tomorrow, but turned the entire planet into urban sprawl suburb, the globe wouldn't warm any. And that's not right.

You and I can agree to disagree on this, and you can feel free to appeal to authority if you like, but someone's doing something wrong with this science, and I fear that they're doing it wrong because they're worried they might find out that CO2 isn't the only boogyman, which would undermine some policy objectives that are relatively sketchy to begin with.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

The IPCC have that backwards, somehow, some way. Stored energy in carbon bonds due to photosynthesis being interned into the earth was just one of the many ways I brewed up to possibly explain it, but if that's not it, then it's something else. They're missing something...You and I can agree to disagree on this, and you can feel free to appeal to authority if you like, but someone's doing something wrong with this science
Here's the thing. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm proving you with the evidence you should have looked up yourself. You, on the other hand, believe the evidence must be wrong based off a hunch. You've done no research, you've done no analysis but you seem to conclude that tens of thousands of papers are obviously incorrect and your little idea is obviously right. So, ya, we'll agree to disagree.

It's similar to the other poster here that sees every bit of published climate science as a part of some nefarious plot to suppress the truth (or something). You simply cannot have a rational, meaningful conversation with someone like that (hence why I don't respond to their comments).

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

So you also believe that if we paved every forest on earth, it would cool the earth off? You didn't seem to believe so two days ago, a half a dozen posts up. You replied to me on the presumption that reforestation was a good thing, global warming wise, without even reading 8.3.5 closely enough to realize what they're trying to say.

As I say above, I'm glad they're at least willing to admit this:

Quote (ipcc)

there is low agreement on the sign of the net change in global mean temperature as a result of land use change. {8.3.5}

...but that's something else they have to get very right if they're going to have a model that's remotely predictive. Before we trot out policy objectives, there needs to be near universal agreement about all the anthropogenic drivers that are in play with that policy change. "low agreement" is not good enough.

My intuition, which I will agree is intuition, is that a third of the warming we've had in the past century has been natural, a third has been CO2, and a third has been land use changes. Right now, the IPCC is claiming that basically none of it is natural, we've experienced a net cooling from land use changes, and that the CO2 has been sooooo warmy that it's overcome the net cooling from land use changes. That's just not right. Someone is going to figure out why, sooner or later, and the IPCC is going to have egg on their faces when they do.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

So you also believe that if we paved every forest on earth, it would cool the earth off?
Beej67, the vast majority of deforestation isn’t to build new/expand cities, it’s for agriculture or to harvest the tree. From 8.3.5.2, “Hurtt et al 2006 estimates that 42 to 68% of land surface has been impacted by land use activities during the 1700-2000 period”. Meanwhile, 3% of the land surface is covered by urban areas (source). Therefore, the vast majority of deforestation is replaced by grasses and cropland (that have a higher albedo), not pavement.

Quote (beej67)

You replied to me on the presumption that reforestation was a good thing, global warming wise, without even reading 8.3.5 closely enough to realize what they're trying to say.
IPCC and I have never suggested that deforestation is a reasonable method to combat global warming. The very slight increase in albedo caused by deforestation is minimal in comparison to the loss of a carbon sink, not to mention the loss of habitat. Read AR5 WGIII. The IPCC explicitly states that a reduction in deforestation is an effective mitigation and adaptation technique in WGIII SPM.4.2.4. Furthermore, WGI clearly indicates that deforestation and other land use change are a significant contributor to CO2 released to the atmosphere. The IPCC believes that deforestation worsens climate change, as do I. They and I have never said otherwise.

Quote (beej67)

My intuition, which I will agree is intuition, is that a third of the warming we've had in the past century has been natural, a third has been CO2, and a third has been land use changes.
I’m going to be honest beej67, no one cares about what your intuition tells you about climate change. Especially when it goes against thousands upon thousands of studies. To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson,

Quote (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Beej67, the vast majority of deforestation isn’t to build new/expand cities, it’s for agriculture or to harvest the tree. From 8.3.5.2, “Hurtt et al 2006 estimates that 42 to 68% of land surface has been impacted by land use activities during the 1700-2000 period”. Meanwhile, 3% of the land surface is covered by urban areas (source). Therefore, the vast majority of deforestation is replaced by grasses and cropland (that have a higher albedo), not pavement.

One - A lot of it ends up straight desert. I don't know if you watch TV, but the Fertile Crescent ain't all that fertile anymore. If they're trying to model the impacts of land use changes and can't even nail down how much of the world was impacted by them within a range of 42% to 68%, then there's a problem. That range alone is far too wide to brew up anything predictive from. They're clearly missing some pretty important data.

Two - a peanut field is hotter than a forest. If they think the other way around, then they're doing something wrong.

Quote:

IPCC and I have never suggested that deforestation is a reasonable method to combat global warming.

Of course not, but the IPCC is saying, quite clearly, that deforestation cools the planet. They're saying, quite clearly, that if the human population was today what it was in the 1700s, with 1700s level sprawl and 1700s level agriculture, but the CO2 was the same as it is today, that the globe would be hotter than it is today. According to their math, you warm the planet when you plant a tree. That isn't right. It's not right. They're doing something wrong.

And when they finally figure out what they're doing wrong, the whole apple cart is going to be tipped over on CO2. We will eventually discover that CO2 is probably only half the problem, and that we're only going to net about half the gains we hope to gain by any sort of CO2 mitigation in isolation from other mitigation.

Quote:

The IPCC believes that deforestation worsens climate change, as do I.

No they don't. They claim land cover changes in 8.3.5 are a negative forcing. They claim that deforestation has cooled the planet, but that that cooling has been overtaken and-then-some by anthropogenic carbon emissions. That's AR5's claim, not mine. It's plain as day, go read it. If you don't believe it, then you're in the same bucket as me, wielding intuition against the IPCC modelers.

The biggest thing the IPCC are missing out on, is they focus way too much on the 1800s+ when they're looking at land cover. There have been huge changes in the amount of anthropogenic influence on land cover throughout history. The biggest global reforestation project in modern history was the simultaneous death of the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan empires from the Two Ss.. ..Smallpox and Spaniards. And what happened to the climate right afterward? All their agricultural lands turned to jungle, and we get the little ice age, that's what.

Trees don't warm the planet. The IPCC is doing something wrong.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (Rconnor)

ENSO is episodic
ENSO is roughly cyclical
ENSO has no notable long-term increase in the intensity of El Nino’s or La Nina’s
ENSO has had no notable long-term impact on pre-industrial temperature trends
ENSO is not a driver of changes in climate
ENSO only causes surface temperature to temporarily deviate from the “average”, it does not impact the “average"
ENSO does not significantly impact the TOA energy balance
ENSO has no inherent mechanism that could have a major impact on long-term trends

I love the arrogance of Rconnor to think that the thread where I trounced his baseless assertions about the nature of the ENSO actually supports his "facts". Please anyone go read that thread. Rconnor shows a lack of even the most basic understanding of what the ENSO is.

Some highlights.

Quote (Rconnor)

ENSO is stochastic

Quote (GTTofAK)

I think you are confusing models with reality. Models treat the ENSO as stochastic. That does not make it stochastic in the real word. Modeling it as a stochastic event is a simply way to get around something you dont fully understand.

Rconnor doesn't really know what the ENSO is.

Quote (Rconnor)

However, there is no known mechanism within ENSO events that can lead to long-term impacts.

Quote (GTTofAK)

The fact that the ENSO has to be modeled as a stochastic shows the logical fallacy in your "However, there is no known mechanism within ENSO events that can lead to long-term impacts." Argumentum ad ignorantiam since we don't know enough about it to model it as anything but a stochastic event then the statement of no known mechanism is meaningless, it would only have some meaning if we had a much greater understanding of the ENSO than we presently do.

Here Rconnor was playing on the fact that we know so little about the ENSO to conclude facts about it. Classic logical fallacy and a sign of ignorance as to what we know about the ENSO, he doesn't know what we dont know. THe ENSO is presently full of unknown unknowns he pretends like its a well understood natural event. Its not.

Rather than admit mistakes Rconnor tries to go on the offense like a mad child

Quote (Rconnor)

"Your attempt to use a minor improvement in our understanding of short-term volcanic impacts as evidence that we know nothing about ENSO (and to use that as evidence that we don't know anything about long-term climate trends) is a nothing more than sophism."

Quote (GTTofAK)

Since we are at 18 years of model diversion how long until the short term becomes long term.

This goes on and on Rconnor uses terms short term and long term but never ever dares to define them. He uses them as they suit his argument.

Rconnor then gets frustrated and tries to shift the burden

Quote (Rconnor)

"What’s more, you know what actually is an argument from ignorance? To say “the absence of evidence is evidence of the opposite”. For example, “I don’t know that ENSO has no long-term influence on climate (because I haven’t read the science on the matter), therefore it has a major long-term influence on climate."

Quote (GTTofAK)

You claimed it has no long term trend. The burden of proof is on he who makes the argument not he who refutes it. Your attempt to shift the burden is another logical fallacy on your part.

Finnaly my personal favorite where Rconnor really showed that he had no clue what so ever

Quote (Rconnor)

If La Nina’s cooled the earth by impacting TOA then you’d expect to see sharp drops in OHC during strong La Nina years that mimic the surface temperature. The opposite for El Nino years. However, this is not the case. OHC has steadily risen, even throughout the “pause”"

This is bass ackwards.

Quote (GTTofAK)

This understanding of la nina couldn’t be more wrong. The la nina phase of the ENSO is the ocean heating phase. During an el nino the pacific gives up energy and during a la nina it absorbs energy. Not only does that wind your previously mentioned start to pool energy it also blows away cloud cover letting more solar radiation reach the ocean surface. Remember we don’t care about the top of the atmosphere we care about how much short wave radiation is actually reaching the surface of the ocean. You would think that before making your argument you would make sure you aren’t violating the first law.

So Rcnonnor makes statements he thinks a facts about the ENSO but he doesn't even understand what the la nina is. His understanding of the ENSO is right up there with his understanding of how a thermometer works. Rconnors "analysis" is largely appeal to authority, his authority. Are you going to take the authority of someone who doesn't even understand how a thermometer works and when called out on it wont even admit the mistake?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
If anyone is interested in the reading more background on ENSO, please see my comment at 12 Feb 15 23:45 or 13 Feb 15 21:00 of this thread.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

4
One thing that astounds me when the climate "debate" comes up in a reasonably well-informed engineering forum such as this:

The sceptics are immensely critical of the fact that the climate models are imperfect, and are constantly being refined and updated for new data, new theories and so on; they are doubly critical of the practice of "hind-casting" to calibrate the models against past data, and then use the re-calibrated models for forecasting purposes. Somehow, this practice of calibrating and refining models demonstrates that the models must be "wrong".

Surely the practice of using imperfect models to analyse incomplete date sets of the interactions of an indeterminate number of variables in complex real-world systems, in order to make sensible, informed decisions, is about as accurate a definition of the profession of Engineering as can be put into a single sentence!

Isn't that PRECISELY the process we go through when we design a reinforced concrete beam? We use characteristic expected material properties (rather than testing every single cubic metre of concrete and every rebar), and for most structures, we don't know the actual loads that will be applied to the beam in service - and yet most of the time, our designs are safe and reliable.

It's the same when we decide on the size of a dam spillway to cater for the "Maximum Probable Flood"; or when we design a more fuel-efficient injection system for an internal combustion engine; or when we design a new substation and electrical distribution network for a growing city centre (even though we don't know exactly how many residents there will be, what appliances they will own, etc); or ...

We have imperfect models, incomplete data sets, partially (or poorly) understood interactions, and yet we are still able to understand the problem (to a limited but workable degree), and arrive at sound engineering solutions. Why should we abandon these principles when it comes to understanding the Earth's climate and confronting our impacts upon it - and it's inevitable impact upon us?





http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2
jhardy1,
You have absolutely missed the point (I'm talking about modeling here, not AGW). Models are imperfect, just like any tool. We all use imperfect tools all the time. Useful models lead us to new areas of investigation. Dangerous models replace investigation. When government policy is based on dangerous models, the conversation polarizes. I don't think anyone is looking for models to be perfect (many of the posters above are modelers and they know about replacing data with assumptions and calibrating models probably at a much deeper level than you do), we are looking for follow-on investigations to fill in the modeling gaps prior to government policy leading nations into bad decisions. People that think that a model can prove something have taken many fields of science in very bad directions. People that know that computer models can only support their underlying bias and (at best) can illuminate areas for investigation are trying to pull it back.

As someone who uses fluid mechanics models in my work, I can say with confidence that my models are often shown after the fact to have properly represented the reality that I later built based on the models. I can also say that occasionally they don't. The models inform the decision, a person must make the decision. The models do not prove that a concept will work, the models sometimes highlight issues that can arrise.

If models could prove future events, all of the computer modelers would be modeling stock markets (and far more of those models fail to predict major market drops than succeed).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (Rconnor)

If anyone is interested in the reading more background on ENSO, please see my comment at

Yes please do so but be sure to read further where Rconnor is reduced to demanding that others prove his assertions false rather than him prove them true.

Quote (Rconnor)

"What’s more, you know what actually is an argument from ignorance? To say “the absence of evidence is evidence of the opposite”. For example, “I don’t know that ENSO has no long-term influence on climate (because I haven’t read the science on the matter), therefore it has a major long-term influence on climate."

Rconnors entire argument stems from the ENSO not being well known so Rconnor believes that he can simply make up any claims he wants and its up to others to prove his assertions false. The man who doesn't understand how a thermometer works wants this forum to take his assertions at face value.

Oh and please read on where Rconnor who is claiming some authority on the ENSO gets the la nina backwards.

Quote (Rconnor)

If La Nina’s cooled the earth by impacting TOA then you’d expect to see sharp drops in OHC during strong La Nina years that mimic the surface temperature. The opposite for El Nino years. However, this is not the case. OHC has steadily risen, even throughout the “pause”"

Absolutely backwards. Claims to be able to do an analysis on the ENSO and doesn't even know the basics of the la nina. He is no authority what so ever. He cant even get the basics correct.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (zdas04)

You have absolutely missed the point (I'm talking about modeling here, not AGW).

Actually it isn't even about that David. What is at issue here really is Rconnors insistence to priory throw out any evidence that disagrees with his predetermined conclusion. After NOAA and GISS adopted the Kent adjustment Rconnor knew full well that he could get the results he wanted if he threw out the satellite data sets. So he makes up some excuses and got the results he wanted. The first reason he listed showed abject scientific incompetence as he failed to understand how thermometers work. He also refuses to address the efficacy of the Kent adjustment. He would rather play a hucksters game of citing papers that rely on the data sets that rely on the Kent adjustment giving the appearance of not relying on that single adjustment while he relies almost entirely upone it through proxy.

He then goes onto make absolute statements knowing full well that there are mountains of satellite data the disagrees with him but he is able to ignore such evidence because of his priory decision to ignore it. At least he thinks so but when you make an absolute statement based on partial data that is simply dishonest.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (jhardy)

We have imperfect models, incomplete data sets, partially (or poorly) understood interactions, and yet we are still able to understand the problem (to a limited but workable degree), and arrive at sound engineering solutions. Why should we abandon these principles when it comes to understanding the Earth's climate and confronting our impacts upon it - and it's inevitable impact upon us?

Absolutely not. We should not abandon these principles, we should double down on them, and triple down on them, and do whatever it takes to get the models right. Nobody in their right mind would design a steel beam if their structural modeling software told them, "well, you either need a beam this big, or maybe something like three times that big." Nobody would use that model. They would tell the modelers to get better at their jobs, and narrow down the size of beam we need.

Especially if the beam was going to cost trillions of dollars.

Yet the climate models we have now simply aren't good enough to nail down the CO2 ECS to within a factor of 3. They predict "either 1.5 C or something like three times that much." That's not good enough to base a policy decision on.

We need more science, and better science, and we need to refine the science until it is verifiably predictable, and all factors must be accounted for. Its job must be to accurately predict. Without that, we cannot weigh the impact of policy.

And you guys can call me crazy if you like, but there is no way in heck I'm going to believe any computer model that says cutting down half the world's trees made the world cooler.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"but" the counter is "we can't wait; waiting for perfect models is like fiddling like Rome burns"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

You mean because our track record on intervening in natural systems is so stellar?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rb)

"but" the counter is "we can't wait; waiting for perfect models is like fiddling like Rome burns"

All the anti-CO2 measures I've seen, policy wise, are gold plated garden hoses that mostly just blow air, with no real guarantee that Rome is actually burning, and no surety that we're using the appropriate fire retardant.

I've linked that before, and rconnor always has a hissy fit when I link it, but there is literally no other source, scientific or otherwise, that even bothers to attempt to predict the impact of that particular 8 billion dollar policy. You can buy a lot of levies for 8 billion dollars. You can also preserve a lot of south American rain forests for 8 billion dollars. But then again, the IPCC seems to think that preserving rain forests makes the globe hotter.

Hell, I bet you could do a lot of climate modeling for 8 billion dollars too. I'd rather spend the money on that, so we can get a predictive model. I highly suspect that once we get a truly predictive model, it's going to show a much larger ROI for planting 8 billion dollars worth of trees.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2
zdas04: our record related to intervening in natural systems in an effort to benefit them has been poor. Our record of doing unintended harm to natural systems as a result of our mass consumption, and then moving through stages of denial and bargaining prior to acceptance and attempting to do something about it, are similarly written large across history. We've done it again and again, and we're doing it this time for certain.

beej67: you can argue that mitigating measures will be costly and potentially of limited effectiveness, and I don't think reasonable people can argue to the contrary. One thing is certain, though: before we can make meaningful changes, we have to move through a period where the changes we make are insignificant.

The only counterargument that I can make is that doing nothing about this is unsustainable, by definition, because the resource we're squandering is nonrenewable. And to me, investment now to hasten a transition which nature will force on us eventually, and which will yield a dividend to future generations of less toxic pollution AND more fossil liquids to use for higher-value uses than as fuel, doesn't seem to me to be a waste of money in the least. I'd draw the same conclusion even if, were that possible, someone could prove that there is no meaningful threat of AGW causing costly, essentially irreparable harm to the only habitable planet we know of.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (moltenmetal)

The only counterargument that I can make is that doing nothing about this is unsustainable, by definition, because the resource we're squandering is nonrenewable

By definition the sun is nonrenewable. Hell eventually the universe will exhaust its kinetic energy and pull back in on itself. You just cant say that something is "nonrenewable" you have to show that we are going to run out in any significant time frame. There is no urgency to replace fossil fuels hence the "need" for the CAGW hypothesis. If we cant prove that we will run out of fuel sans the 1970s peak oil fraud then argue that we will destroy the planet if we burn all of our reserves.

As Rconnor likes to say this is really about "tearing down the capitalist zeitgeist". Of course when the Rconnors of the world get power they tend to not give two @#$%s about the environment. Soviet Russia, China, Norway (how many barrels of oil per capita does Norway produce), Venezuela(same as Norway), etc. etc. After the captalist zeitgeist is torn down it seems that men like Rconnor are far more interested in keeping their inefficient economic system afloat even if that means raping the environment for short term resources.

Capitalism may not perfectly allocate of resources nor does it do a good job protecting the environment, that is where democracy comes in, but it has shown to do both far more effectively than socialism. Socialism only in theory cares about the environment, in practice socialist rape the land for resources to keep their system running time and time again.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Now we're talking about hydrocarbons. There is nothing on earth more renewable than methane. Where do people think that fossil fuels came from? The answer is anaerobic decomposition of organic materials in an environment conducive to trapping the molecules prior to their migration into space. The world's recoverable fossil fuels represent a couple of billionth of a percent of the hydrocarbons that have been produced over the last 400 million years or so. When it stops being economic to search for it we will apply (currently existing) technology to doing a better job of harvesting contemporary methane. Thousands of dairy farms and and feed lots are currently net exporters of power (even when you add in the transportation fuels that they have to import) from harvesting animal waste. Whole cities are supplying their own power from land fill gas. City sanitary waste facilities all over the world are developing plans to harvest the methane from human waste (to meet silly "emissions" goals, which are silly because daily ocean seeps of methane far exceed human-caused annual methane emissions).

When (not if) fossil fuels get too rare to be economically recoverable, we will be able to fill the natural gas infrastructure with waste methane recovery. We will be able to meet motor fuel requirements through chemistry (probably a significant evolution from Fischer Trope, but maybe a whole new approach, hard to guess). We will supply plastics feedstock from the intermediate processes of making liquid motor fuel.

The idea that wind and solar are a significant portion of the 2100 energy mix is just stupid. Hydrocarbons will be mankind's primary energy source until we manage to blow ourselves up or the sun runs out of hydrogen.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Jhardy1, very well said. It is puzzling and I’ve continually asked how skeptics might recommend performing the science. They reply that you do laboratory experiments. To which I repeatedly ask,

Quote (rconnor)

How would you create a laboratory scale model to study the interdependent effects of ocean/atmosphere dynamics, prevailing wind patterns, changes in prevailing wind patterns, ocean currents, changes in ocean currents, cloud formation, changes in albedo, etc, such that the can adequately capture the dynamics of the earth’s climate system AND find a way to speed up those interactions such that you can see the impact in 100 years? I don’t believe it can be done. Instead, you’d attempt to break those systems up into subsystems, study them by analyzing observed behavior (past and present) and then take that knowledge into a model. That’s exactly what climate scientists are doing.
I’ve yet to hear an answer.

“Skeptics” love to refer to climate science as some kind of inversion of science. They claim that the answer was hypothesized and models were designed to produce the right answer (usually as part of some nefarious plot by the government or the UN but other times, more sensibly, as pure noble cause corruption). However, this false. For an extensive history of how climate science developed, I’d suggest reading the American Institute of Physics’ “Discovery of Global Warming”. The basics are below:
  • Svante Arrhenius 1896 and Tyndall 1861 began to establish the basic physics of green house gases and their impact on global temperatures.
  • Line-by-line calculations of the greenhouse effect, supported by laboratory experiments, demonstrates that CO2, without any feedbacks, increases temperatures by ~1 deg C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (source). (see here for a list of papers). However, we know that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which is a strong greenhouse gas, and will reduce land and sea ice. Both of these, along with many others, amplify the warming (i.e. positive feedback). Others factors (i.e. Stefan-Boltzmann law) will dampen the warming (i.e. negative feedback).
  • Pretty well ever metric points to a planet that is accruing energy (see here at 16 Jan 14 01:20 for ~10 examples) which correlates with the increase in CO2 concentrations.
  • Combining the solid science of green house gas warming with the observed changes in climate, CO2 emissions were a very possible candidate for the cause of the warming.
  • Then the scientific community began investigating the issue much closer. Anthropogenic CO2 emission fingerprints were all over the evidence (see here at 5 Mar 14 18:24 for examples and references). Furthermore, most of the evidence was counter to the hypothesis that the sun or other natural effects were responsible.
  • Massive amounts of research has been done (and is still on-going) to understand climatology by observing the climate and how the climate response to forcings (ex. AR5 WGI Chapter 8 alone has 19 pages of references).
  • As a warming planet will have significant impact on humans (through local climate, agriculture, sea level rise, etc), it is economically and socially important to quantify what the future changes might be. However, it’s impossible to conduct a laboratory experiment to see how the Earth’s climate system will ultimately respond to forcings (see my quote above), so you need to look for other methods to investigate the change.
  • One obvious place to get an idea of the Earth’s climate sensitivity is to study past changes in climate. Paleoclimatology shows that nearly every major change in atmospheric CO2 levels coincide with changes in global temperatures (usually kick started by insolation changes) (see here at 24 Apr 15 20:24). Past changes in climate are simply unexplainable without a climate sensitivity of ~2.2 to 4.8 deg C (source). It’s rather ironic that a favourite “skeptic” argument that “it’s changed before” actually leads to some of the strongest evidence for a high CO2 sensitivity.
  • Models are another method. Unless we have a time machine, they are the only possible way to calculate projections of future temperatures based on various scenarios. It’s important to note CO2 sensitivity is not an input into climate models but an output. In other words, modelers don’t tell the models that the planet is sensitivity to CO2 beforehand. Furthermore, models are locked prior to running full scale GCM's, so they cannot be fiddled with to produce a high-sensitivity result. While there is a wide range in sensitivity estimates, they do broadly agree with paleoclimatology estimates.
  • The result of all the research suggests that climate change is happening (AR5 WGI), it’s caused by us (WGI) and it will have a very negative impact (WGII) unless we attempt to mitigate the most possible scenarios (WGIII). While there is still a lot of uncertainty, there is no significant and credible evidence that I’m aware of to suggest that climate sensitivity is so low as to be unimportant (especially when you look at the extent of past changes).
If this is an inversion of science, then I’d love to hear how “skeptics” wish it would have been done. (seriously, I really would like to know)

Ironically, it is the “skeptic” camp that has inverted the scientific process. They have been told that the science concludes that mitigation measures are required to avoid harmful repercussions of climate change and these mitigation measures may require new laws and regulations. As this is counter to their libertarian ideology (and I would say that most “skeptics” would self-describe as libertarians. Perhaps 97%?), they cannot agree with this conclusion. They therefore feel that there must be something wrong with the science. In other words, they looked at the conclusion, didn’t like it and decided the science must be wrong – almost purely due to political ideology. Some stop there and flat out reject the science with no further investigation while others comb through the science looking for any error to support their viewpoint. That is an inversion of science. This is exactly the reason I refer to them as “skeptics” not skeptics. To quote Migeul de Unamouno:

Quote (Migeul de Unamouno)

The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

zdas04: I can see a day, not too far off in the future, where most of our electricity is NOT generated from fossil fuels. At my current retail cost of electricity, it already makes economic sense for me to buy solar panels and put them on my roof. Load-shedding of this sort is going to grow by leaps and bounds in the next decade. Yes, I know that there's still peaking and off-peak generation to take care of, but in my own jurisdiction we're already at only 9.2% fossil and falling (100% of which is natural gas fired) on an annual average basis- the balance being nuclear and renewables. A decade ago, people in this jurisdiction would have thought that unimaginable.

Once people can generate more electricity than they need, they will start using it for transportation. That too is inevitable.

I would love to hasten that transition. The threat of global warming makes it imperative in my view, but it's still something we should be striving to bring to pass even (and I truly doubt this) AGW were to turn out to be insignificant.

I know you're in love with Fisher Tropsch, David, but it's a terribly wasteful technology. It makes no more energetic or economic or environmental sense to convert methane to liquid fuels by means of syngas conversion than it does to convert methane to hydrogen for fuels use. Sure, we will be forced to do this once we have no more liquid hydrocarbons to exploit, but I don't see the mass adoption of F-T type technologies as being any more likely in the near term than a total elimination of fossil fuels use. There are other gas-to-chemicals technologies that do now, or could in future, make economic sense- but if the desired product is liquid fuels, starting with syngas and then hydrogenating CO to produce hydrocarbons guarantees a huge efficiency hit. As a means of using methane that would otherwise be flared (whether it's methane or equimolar methane/CO2 from anaerobic degradation), it's a lovely concept but the devil is in the details. Nothing will happen without a regulatory or taxation driver, and even then there's always an alternative. F-T barely made sense at $120/bbl even with "free" gas feed, and it certainly doesn't make sense south of $50/bbl. The trouble is the nature of methane itself, just like the trouble with hydrogen is hydrogen itself, so I doubt an evolution of catalysts or other aspects of the technology is going to make much difference.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2
moltenmetal,
Interesting use of made up statistics. According to Wikipedia (I understand that many people reject Wikipedia out of hand, but this table is a compact representation of data that is consistent with other sources) the province of Ontario, Canada has nameplate generating capacity of 35,387 MW of generating capacity. About 1/3 of it is hydro (which is only "renewable" in the sense that new water falls from the sky, but dams do silt up and turbines do break, and many environmentalists hate dams even more than coal). Wind is 4% and solar is 0.3% of the total (remember that this is nameplate data so the actual power available at the latitude of Ontario is closer to 0.09%). Non-hydro, non-nuclear thermal generation is 38%.

Load shedding is simply one of the stupidest concepts ever to come out of a bureaucrat's sick mind. Basically it requires unloading very efficient generation capacity in favor of very inefficient generation capacity (solar panels tend to have nameplate output around 10% of the amount of sun that falls on them). When the sun goes down (or the wind stops) the efficient capacity takes the load back (often on very short notice) and must supply the sites that have foregone paying for storage capacity. The utility still has to have the peak capacity. New natural gas stations are usually co-gen that can reach 70% Carnot efficiency when running steady state. In transient operations the efficiency drops to the low 20% range, and the NOx/SOx numbers go from near zero to above emissions thresholds. The net result in many sites is that load shedding and renewable mandates has actually increased the amount of real pollutants that get dumped into the air.

Solar panels on your roof ONLY make economic sense (they may make operational sense to you if your grid power is unreliable for example) if you include massive government subsidies both to the manufacturer and the consumer. Add to that the government mandate that the utilities pay retail rates for the buy back (basically the power from your roof costs the utility 10 times the cost of power from traditional sources) and without "welfare for the greens" your solar panel would cost you close to 20 times the kW-hr cost of grid power. But you get to feel really good and warm and fuzzy about yourself and how you are personally saving the planet. What utter dreck.

I am anything but in love with Fischer-Tropsch. It is simply an example of a technology available today to turn methane into more valuable compounds. Economics (if we can keep the government on the sidelines) will dictate feasibility. When the crude is gone, some technology will fill the gap. If it isn't FT, it will be something else. Fossil crude will run out. I have no idea when, but it will. Since crude started with methane-rich decomposition products and under heat and extreme pressure over geologic time it became heavier species. We won't have geologic time available to us, so some clever chemistry will be required. I think that is what I said in my post above.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@david,
"About 1/3 of it is hydro" ... mostly from Niagara (not dams), maybe Quebec (with James Bay) ?

I'd read the table as 50% nuke, 25% hydro, and 25% for everything else (between '10 and '11 there was a large drop in coal fired generators, if we're to believe our politicians).

agree that solar works 'cause of government policy ... wait for it ... incoming !
but what about the petroleum industry "support" ... damn, round 2 ...

IMHO, everything, Everything, in the public environment is policy driven; the science is only window-dressing.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

As I live in an area that can be devoured by fire, I choose to have a tile roof over solar panels. I also choose to not cut down living trees to install solar panels.
I do choose to cut down dead trees to heat my home.

So where exactly do solar panels fit? As solar panels only provide electricty, or heat, and not both, why are they better than harvesting dead trees for heat?
The answer is convience. Solar panels are so easy, but are not a complete answer.

Question: What is the biggest energy use in your home? Electricty or heat? Which really gives the biggest dent in your energy footprint?

I would be concerned about anyone who suggests deforrestation, as there are enviromental laws for errosion concerns.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

David, you've just pointed out brilliantly the reason people question Wikipedia.

Instead, visit the Independent Electrical System Operator of Ontario:

http://www.ieso.ca/

Or go to www.gridwatch.ca

Just checked a minute ago. Current electrical production is 10.8% gas, with gas being the only fossil fuelsource. Yearly average from the monthly reports between June 2014 and June 2015 was 9.2% gas. We have 0% generation from coal. Our CO2 intensity is in the 40-60 g CO2/kWh range, compared with about 1000 g/kWh in Australia.

The panels and inverters I would buy are not subsidized. If another government is subsidizing their cost to me, I'm all for it! I would be buying and installing them outside the government's microFIT program, so no subsidy would accrue to me either. And yet, looking at what I'm paying (including taxes and all other fees), reducing my peak demand by buying solar panels absolutely makes economic sense.

Cranky, I'm already heating a home we added to, making it 50% larger in livable floor area than it was when we bought it- and we're heating it using 20% less energy than it took to heat the original home. I have a very high efficiency gas boiler for heating and a similar unit for domestic hot water, and the addition is superinsulated- and we've already done everything we reasonably can to improve the thermal performance of the remaining portions of the home, short of tearing it down to the studs and starting again- we did that in a few places too where the renos needed it done.



RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

That IESO link is interesting. Embedded solar generation capacity is 1,634 MW, but as of 2:00 EDT (height of the generating day) solar is putting out 97 MW. 6% of installed capacity. With about 9% of the sun hitting the panels being converted to electricity I get that it has maybe 0.54% efficiency?

They have a page called Supply Mix that shows current installed capacity of (in MW, as of September 2015):
  • Nuclear.......12,978 (36.9%)
  • Gas............9,920 (28.2%)
  • Hydro..........8,462 (24.1%)
  • Wind...........3,209 (9.1%)
  • Biofuel..........455 (1.3%)
  • Solar............140 (0.4%)

Not a mix that is significantly different from the Wikipedia list, wind has increased a bit in the last 5 years. Gas nameplate capacity is kind of hard to extract from the Wikipedia page so I don't know how it has changed.

The biofuel (which isn't huge) is from the conversion of coal plants due to government policy vilifying coal. A couple of the plants do not disclose their capacity, but the ones that do have a capacity between 50% and 70% of their previous capacity (fuel delivery of biofuels is not really ready for prime time).

I'm not going to talk about CO2e or any of the other simulated reasons for bastardizing a power grid. I certainly would not be bragging about eliminating plant food from the environment, but if you must go ahead.

No subsides for you solar panels? Interesting spin. The Ontario government doesn't mandate a price that the utility MUST pay you for your excess power? Isn't that price nearly twice what you pay for power? They sure think they do. The price of panels has dropped 50% in the last 5 years. That is because global subsidies have created economies of scale. When the tax incentives come off (and I think they will as it becomes clearer how much damage this insanity has done to the power grid), plants will begin closing all over the world and prices will return to 2000 levels (about 4 times today's prices/kW).

I have installed a couple of thousand 100 W panels over the last 30 years and for my project economics I use replacing 50% of the batteries every year and 1/3 of the panels every year. Since you are planning on letting your friends and neighbors provide the low-sun backup you won't have to worry about storage batteries. The solar-panel industry claiming 35 year life has some interesting assumptions built in. No dust in the air. No collections of birds to take advantage of the warmth. No heavy winds ever. No high-velocity grit. My experience has been that all these things are not only possible, but common.

rb1957
Your statement

Quote (rb1957)

"About 1/3 of it is hydro" ... mostly from Niagara (not dams)
isn't really supported by the data (imagine that). I found a list of the hydro supplies to the Ontario grid (not all of which are in Ontario) and it was several pages, none of which was Niagra Falls. Guess that power goes somewhere else.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I think 'cause OPG call it "Sir Adam Beck Pump Generating Station" and not Niagara Falls (that'd be Way too easy !)

PLANT GROUP: Niagara Plant Group

DRAINAGE BASIN: Lake Erie
RIVER: Niagara River
NEAREST POPULATION CENTRE: Queenston, Ontario
IN SERVICE DATE: 1957/1958
NUMBER OF UNITS: 6
CAPACITY: 174 MW

but a capacity of 174MW of a total hydro of 8406MW, I guess it is a small component ... surprised.

and the guys south of the border have their own power station.

but this is all just a red herring in the argumentdebate.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

My point was that in the next 20-50 years the money we have to lay out to fix unmaintained dams, reservoirs, and power stations will make us yearn for the days when the only crumbling infrastructure we worried about was bridges and roads.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

this is more like it ... from OPG site ...
"Niagara Operations has facilities on the lower Niagara River and at DeCew Falls in St. Catharines. These stations have a total capacity of 2,278 MW" ... about 1/4 of the hydro total. hummm, getting to the wiki total seems a bit of stretch ...
from the OPG's figures ...
Niagara 2,300
Eastern Ont 2,600 (1,000 from the St Lawrence)
NE Ont 1,000
NW Ont 700
total 6,600 (vs 8400 from wiki ?)
but maybe I'm not using the data right, or complete ?

some of those dams up north look quite interesting ... maybe a road-trip ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
zdas04, you’re talking about installed capacity. Moltenmetal is talking about actual power generation. While you're both technically correct in a general sense, molten’s numbers are more meaningful in this context.

Furthermore, “embedded” solar generation capacity means non-utility owned solar generation (i.e. owned by distribution company or solar panels on houses/businesses). This does not factor into the (utility) supply solar numbers, it offsets the required (utility) supply. A hint would be to look at the embedded wind generation capacity (425 MW) and compare that with the current (utility) supply by wind (2,475 MW). Using the same logic you applied to the solar generation, apparently wind generation is currently operating at 582% efficiency! That’s impressive! Of course that’s wrong and so is your 0.54% number. The correct analysis would use the (utility) installed capacity of 140 MW, not the embedded capacity.

Sorry for jumping into this conversation, just needed to correct that error.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Yes, my numbers related to the electricity supply mix in Ontario are meaningful- I did careful research on this in relation to my electric car conversion project. David's numbers are not, but I do suspect he's learning, or at least I hope he is. Summing nameplate capacities gives a totally inaccurate indication of where our power is actually coming from.

Ontario's hydro generation capacity is substantial and not just limited to Niagara Falls, though that is still a huge series of generators- including if I'm not mistaken, two new ones that were added by means of a massive tunneling project. But there are many others, on the Ottawa River and elsewhere, which are very substantial. The Gridwatch app gives a complete list of every station of every type and what it is generating, hour by hour. You can click on a link to read about the location, installation date, nameplate capacity etc.

You can ignore CO2 emissions if you like, but they are correlated with toxic emissions AND with fuel purchases. Either way, it's lovely to see that our power grid buys so little fossil fuel. It was a huge change, but a totally worthwhile one.

David, your theory that solar panel sale prices will quadruple when feed-in tariffs (inevitably) come off is an interesting one. I don't buy it at all though.

If I had no mature trees and a roof pointing in the right direction, I'd have put a 10 kW microFIT installation on my roof five years ago when they were paying an absurd $0.85/kWh for everything you generate- not even net of what you use. That, in my view, was bad public policy! Paying a high subsidy for any net generation is one thing, but paying for all production even when not a single electron leaves the property is just dumb-@ss. A friend of mine designed the roof on his addition to take advantage of this absurd subsidy, and another cut down three or four mature trees to take advantage of it too. The feed in tariff has dropped in half now, and with permit fees and the cost to install a separate meter, you would need to install a system larger than what I could meaningfully install on my roof to make any economic sense. But a few panels just to chop off my peak consumption is another matter. Both the panels and the inverters are so cheap now that it would be cheaper to do this than to try to hunt down the last few opportunities for power consumption reductions left in the house. Payback would be far quicker than the 20 years that the panels are guaranteed for.

Forget about batteries- they're necessary for off-grid or UPS use but even our expensive power is just too cheap for batteries of any kind (much less Li-ion) to make sense for load-levelling/peak-shedding right now. Tesla's Powerwall is just an over-hyped way for Musk to ensure that if he produces more batteries than he can sell in his awesome but extremely expensive cars, he won't be stuck with them sitting on a shelf.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Three weeks in and Rconnor has yet to even admit that he didn't know how a thermoter works.

Quote (Rconnor)

Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.

All thermometers infer temperature from some other measurement, be it the thermal expansion of a liquid as used in a mercury thermometer, or the impedance of a metal as used in probe thermometers. His "modern ground-based temperature data" also indirectly infers temperature. Rconnor was wrong, painfully wrong for someone who claims to be an ME. Its the kind of gross error that would disqualify any of us from any expert testimony. No jury would or judge would believe a word you say after such an error.

Rconnor is mentally incapable of admitting a mistake. Much like his previous argument about the ENSO being stochastic

Quote (Rconnor)

ENSO is stochastic

The next time Rconnor makes a diatribe about the satellite records he will simply drop the argument rather than admit a mistake. Did Rconnor ever admit he was wrong about the ENSO being stochastic? No. He simply dropped it the next time he copied and pasted his current ENSO diatribe. Expect the same with the argument about satellites not directly measuring temperature.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

zdas04, you’re talking about installed capacity. Moltenmetal is talking about actual power generation. While you're both technically correct in a general sense, molten’s numbers are more meaningful in this context.

^^correct. Installed capacity would be how much you could generate from the dam with an infinite amount of water to push through it. Actual generation fluctuates with volume of water that goes through it, as well as with the head of the reservoir over its discharge point.

It's a little bit funny .. global warming will actually have a net positive effect on hydropower, as warming creates more convection, which leads to more rain. It's still not a net gain compared to the costs of sea level rise, but it is interesting.

I do think that the effects of increased rainfall due to global warming will have a noticeably net positive effect on certain areas of the arid 2nd and 3rd world, though. Syria, for instance, has about sucked their aquifer dry. They need some rain. Also a stable government of any form would be nice.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

My biggest pet peeve with net metering has nothing to do with the environment but with safety. In the event of an outage linemen have to go and verify that every source of generation is disconnected before they can work on restoring service. When there were only a few net meters this wasn't much of a problem. But as more people net meter this greatly increases the work needed to restore power. In response there has been a push from politicians and bureaucrats to abandon safety and have linemen assume that non-utility owned switch gear worked appropriately and not visually confirm an open. This is dangerous, it violates decades of safety procedure just for some pet green cause.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

GTTofAK, I'd never even considered that before. Pink star to you, for changing my opinion on a topic.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Maybe the linemen can ground the line on both sides of where they are working, and short out any generation, like they do in transmission work. This is a red herring.
Besides most inverters can't even provide the vars required for the distribution transformer at the 'pole'.

Net metering will cause an increase in fixed utility costs, and at some point will be moved from the energy part of a persons bill to the meter charge, like it should be, or placed as a demand charge like business now have. The demand charge should be applied for maximum power flow in either direction.

So why has there been no talk about placing solar panels on electric cars. This would be a good way to partly charge the batteries while the car is parked. The reason is the government can't tax what they can measure. And at some point the government will want to tax energy used in electric cars.

I still think solar car ports might be a better answer than roof top solar. It would at least keep the car cool in the summer, and snow off it in the winter.



RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Hey rconnor, I'll take a crack at this:

Quote (rconnor)

How would you create a laboratory scale model to study the interdependent effects of ocean/atmosphere dynamics, prevailing wind patterns, changes in prevailing wind patterns, ocean currents, changes in ocean currents, cloud formation, changes in albedo, etc, such that the can adequately capture the dynamics of the earth’s climate system AND find a way to speed up those interactions such that you can see the impact in 100 years? I don’t believe it can be done. Instead, you’d attempt to break those systems up into subsystems, study them by analyzing observed behavior (past and present) and then take that knowledge into a model. That’s exactly what climate scientists are doing.

They have to do exactly what they're doing, but do a better job of it. They have to be willing to listen to criticism, and respond with good science instead of attacking other scientists funding sources. They have to strive, through sound science, to nail that ECS number down to a range of 1C or less, and in doing so they have to look at other warming factors as well instead of intentionally ignoring or downplaying them. We need legit ECS numbers for all factors that warm the planet, not just carbon.

It'd also be nice if they admitted that they haven't found the answer yet, too, to pull some of the politicization out of the topic.

I think with a collective approach and more, better, science, we can get the answer nailed down. And I think getting the answer nailed down is important. But right now, anyone who challenges the prevailing view in the scientific community is witch-hunted and ostracized, and that's not doing anybody any good. Scepticism is the foundation of good science.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (cranky108)

Maybe the linemen can ground the line on both sides of where they are working, and short out any generation, like they do in transmission work. This is a red herring.

Protective grounding is a redundant protection. It is not meant to be the protection. A lineman in my city got hit last year with both sides of his clearance "grounded." And just yesterday there was a lineman hit by a 12.5kV "de-energized" transformer. This is not a field where you rely on one protection or assume that protections have worked. Utilities dont assume that their own protection equipment worked much less should they assume that a customer's has.

This is arguing that we abandon decades of safety protocol in order for these green ideas to work. Lets just abandon the confirming a visual open and just rely on protective grounding.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

They have to do exactly what they're doing, but do a better job of it.
Beej67, that’s quite a sensible post, for the most part. While I disagree with some of the details, it’s certainly more reasonable than most that claim everything they do is wrong (and usually for nefarious reasons).

Quote (beej67)

They have to be willing to listen to criticism, and respond with good science instead of attacking other scientists funding sources.
Valid criticisms – yes. All criticisms – no. So much of the criticism is nonsense or has already been proven invalid and, so, is rightly ignored. However, there are numerous examples of the scientific community discussing and incorporating research that goes against the main-stream view. For example, Lewis 2013 was included and impactful in AR5. McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2005 were included and discussed in AR4. So have papers from Spencer, Christy and Lindzen, etc. been referenced in various IPCC reports. Lindzen, Tol, Christy, etc. have all been lead authors on various chapters or various IPCC reports. If and where they are valid, papers and scientists that go against the main stream view are published, referenced and discussed by the scientific community.

However, what the “skeptic” community wants is for these few papers to completely overturn the thousands of papers that work against them. They continually overstretch the conclusions by not looking at the context of the paper. I’m sorry but that’s not how science works. A strong body of research requires a lot to completely overturn it. Now, this could certainly be from a single paper but that paper would have to be extremely significant, valid and conclusive in all contexts. I’d gladly entertain such a paper but I’ve yet to see anything close to that. Lewis and Curry 2014 was, for a short time on “skeptic” blogs, touted as such a paper. However, as shown in my post on sensitivity estimates, when you bring in the appropriate context, the paper is rather insignificant. That’s exactly what I’m doing in these posts on the “pause” – bringing in the appropriate context. This is a very common theme. “Skeptic” arguments are not always flat out wrong (sometimes they are…) but they almost always are without necessary context. Pretty well all I’ve ever done here is bring in the appropriate context.

Quote (beej67)

They have to strive, through sound science, to nail that ECS number down
They are. (note: further to my point above, Nic Lewis was invited to give a talk at the Ringberg workshop)

Quote (beej67)

in doing so they have to look at other warming factors as well instead of intentionally ignoring or downplaying them.

Quote (beej67)

But right now, anyone who challenges the prevailing view in the scientific community is witch-hunted and ostracized, and that's not doing anybody any good.
…this is why I had to include the “for the most part” caveat in my opening statement…(you were doing so well up to that point!)

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (GTTofAK)

Rconnor is mentally incapable of admitting a mistake. Much like his previous argument about the ENSO being stochastic… Did Rconnor ever admit he was wrong about the ENSO being stochastic? No. He simply dropped it the next time he copied and pasted his current ENSO diatribe. Expect the same with the argument about satellites not directly measuring temperature.

Quote (rconnor (from 4 Feb 15 22:58 of http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=378073))

Perhaps stochastic isn't the best word to use in the real-world context. You are correct.

Quote (rconnor (from 10 Feb 15 18:42 of http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=378073))

An example of this is your first post discussing how “stochastic” is only appropriate in the context of models and not when describing ENSO in reality. While this is true, it is, on its own, pointless.

Usually I don’t bother responding to you, GTTofAK.

Rarely does anything productive come from it.

All that happens is the conversation goes further down the drain.

No matter.

I don’t think you’ve fully read what I’ve written. Maybe skimmed it, selectively ignoring bits.

Did you read the paragraph that started with, “None of this is meant to say…”?

I see no reason in responding to those that can’t be bothered to engage honestly.

Oh well.

This post was fun to write at least.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I've read what you have written. There is very little you haven't posted before. I have already hacked the same arguments to pieces in your previous threads. But there is freedom of speech in this world and no one can stop you from spamming the same false claims over and over again.

Example

Quote (Rconnor)

ENSO does not significantly impact the TOA energy balance

This is false and you know its false.



No matter how many times you repeat the claim it doesn't make it any more true. The current La Nina dominate phase has clearly effected TOA significantly reducing outgoing short wave radiation due to a La Nina's westerly winds blowing away pacific cloud cover.

You strategy is to simply spam so many arguments that others who have a life wont put the effort into refute every single point. I however chose a simpler tactic and show that you are not an honest broker of information. You have yet to even admit that you didn't have the faintest understanding of how thermometers work. As such you have 0 credibility. That the problem when putting forward a case. You cant make such mistakes. If you made that same mistake on a witness stand as an expert no jury or judge would believe a further a word you say. Why should anyone here?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
You seem to be selectively ignoring this part of my statement on ENSO and TOA:

Quote (rconnor)

Note that I’m not saying that ENSO doesn’t impact TOA at all; it does very slightly impact the TOA radiative balance by affecting cloud cover temporarily. Mayer et al 2013 found that “TOA net radiation perturbations are small”. Trenberth et al 2010 states that “The main changes in SSTs throughout the tropics are associated with El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events in which the dominant changes in energy into an atmospheric column come from ocean heat exchange through evaporation, latent heat release in precipitation, and redistribution of that heat through atmospheric winds. These changes can be an order of magnitude larger than the net TOA radiation changes” (my emphasis).

So, as I've said from the beginning, ENSO does impact TOA but the TOA change lasts as long as the ENSO event does (~1 year) and does not significantly impact the net TOA over multi-year periods (unless the ENSO state remains the same). The temporary changes in TOA caused by ENSO events are rather irrelevant in comparison with the temporary changes in SST caused by ENSO events. And all of this is rather irrelevant in the long-term as demonstrated by the steadily rising OHC and temperatures.

The graph that you post of CERES data is absolutely irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. An 8 year decline in outgoing SW radiation (i.e. less energy reflected back to space) during a La Nina dominated period. Ok. So does La Nina warm the planet then? Well, no because temporary SST changes dominate the temporary TOA changes. So is ENSO responsible for the TOA imbalance? Well, no because the TOA change is caused by trade winds which fluctuate based off the particular ENSO state that year and has no notable impact on the long term trend. Allow me to show this to you graphically. Here's the ENSO state (using NOAA data):


Here's OHC (also from NOAA):


Here's temperatures (from NASA):


While ENSO can dominate year-to-year variability, it does not influence long-term trends. You're random image of 8 years of CERES data does nothing to change this.

You're not worth it. You say that I'm "mentally incapable of admitting a mistake", using an example where I very clearly (twice, in fact) agreed with your correction. Did you admit your mistake? In mind boggling hypocrisy and irony, you did not. You ignored it and moved on to another example where you, again, completely misrepresent what I say about ENSO and TOA using some random, non-sourced image that doesn't support your point.

I swear you must be trolling. It's the only way I can make sense of you.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Valid criticisms – yes. All criticisms – no. So much of the criticism is nonsense or has already been proven invalid and, so, is rightly ignored. However, there are numerous examples of the scientific community discussing and incorporating research that goes against the main-stream view. For example, Lewis 2013 was included and impactful in AR5. McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2005 were included and discussed in AR4. So have papers from Spencer, Christy and Lindzen, etc. been referenced in various IPCC reports. Lindzen, Tol, Christy, etc. have all been lead authors on various chapters or various IPCC reports. If and where they are valid, papers and scientists that go against the main stream view are published, referenced and discussed by the scientific community.

I'm okay with ignoring criticisms that are easily shown to be invalid through honest scientific peer review. I am very much NOT ok with dismissing criticism based on funding source, and there are political efforts in play right now to do exactly that. Climate scientists should be happy to get any funds they can get, from any source, because any science is better than no science. If it turns out to be bad, show why and move on. Every attempt at cracking this egg no matter how it's funded is of some value.

And we don't need to be committing trillions of dollars on science that isn't settled.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
beej67, I'm mostly in agreement with that. Research isn’t inherently wrong when it’s funded by private institutions that have a possible financial motivation in a specific conclusion. However, I do feel the funding and possible conflicts-of-interest should be transparent and editors should be well aware of it when reviewing. As you said, in the end if it’s good science, it doesn’t matter what the funding source is and it should be published. However, if it’s junk, it’s junk. Everything else is just adding to the three-ring circus that is aimed to distract from the science.

…hence why I continually try to pull the conversation back to discussing the science, not the politicization of the issue. We can cut through the noise (of the media/politicians) by going straight to the science (in journals and from scientific institutions).

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

See, here's what I'm talking about. Check out Vox's daily scare piece:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9567863/climate-chan...



Quote (vox)

There's a huge problem here: If the United States, EU, and China all followed through on their current emissions pledges, they'd consume practically the world's entire carbon budget by 2030 — leaving only scraps for the rest of the world (the part shaded in gray).

What Vox doesn't say, is that the math used to produce the black line in the graph (the allowable CO2 emissions budget to avoid doomsday or whatever) had to presume an ECS number within the IPCC's range of 1.5 to 4.5. It doesn't say which number was presumed, although I'm sure the actual paper does say it. But whatever number you presume drastically impacts that scary black line, and therefore drastically impacts policy. Yet here we are talking about policy changes because of the scary black line.

Quote (vox)

In the United States, the necessary cuts would require policies exponentially more ambitious than anything the Obama administration has been doing through the Environmental Protection Agency. Under an "equity" approach we'd need to go zero carbon by 2040 — just 25 years! Congress would obviously need to get involved, either by enacting carbon pricing or other policies to massively scale up zero-carbon energy. This would entail World War II–style mobilization.

So obviously that's not going to happen. If everyone hangs their hat on these doomsday predictions, and then the doomsday predictions do not occur, who loses? Science loses. In particular, environmental scientists lose. What's worse, what if by some miracle we did decide to go to such extremes, achieved the CO2 goals listed above, and then the globe still warmed because we missed something in our modeling? Like, oh, I don't know, that deforestation actually warms the planet instead of cools it. Then who loses? Science loses. In particular, environmental scientists lose.

You starting to see what I'm saying here rconnor?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I dont think alarmists really care if science loses. As Rconnor said this is really about "tearing down the capitalist zeitgeist". Of course when pressed for examples of good environmental stewardship of true socialist countries or almost socialist countries such examples are really hard to find. How much oil does Norway produce per capita. Were it not for the close to $100,000 per family in government revenue, mainly from oil, Norway gets their system would be unsustainable.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
beej67, I am and I certainly appreciate your concerns of the impact on environmentalism as a whole (specifically wild-life preservation). Now, this is completely misguided as the IPCC specifically lists reforestation as an essential part of tackling climate change, but still it is commendable.

However, I think you continually not just completely ignore the other side of the uncertainty coin (i.e. higher sensitivity) but don’t even understand the favourable side of the uncertainty coin (i.e. what low sensitivity entails).

Honing in the sensitivity estimate is of course important. However, the current range of sensitivity estimates does not mean the difference between needing mitigation or not, it’s the difference between how aggressive the mitigation measures need to be and how costly the adaptation measures will be. Taking the LC14 TCR estimate (1.33 K) rather than the usual IPCC TCR value (1.8 K) would mean, under the same emission scenario, we’d hit 2 deg C a decade later.

Furthermore, you need to remember that TCR is about the rate of warming, not the total warming. Without mitigation measures, we’ll continue to warm past the first doubling of CO2. So without mitigation measures, warming won’t magically stop at 1.3 K or 1.8 K (or 2.2 K). Warming won’t even stop if we magically stop emitting carbon today. Slow feedbacks will continue to cause warming to around the ECS point. This is why the 2 deg C goal is so difficult to meet because we are already at 1 deg C and we know we are locked in for more even if we (magically) cut 100% of emissions today. (I bet that when we start getting serious about mitigation measures and temperatures continue to rise due to slow feedbacks, “skeptics” will say “See! I told you mitigation wouldn’t work!” simply due to a lack of understanding.)

And all of this completely ignores the numbers at the upper end of the IPCC range. Especially as there is greater uncertainty on the upper limit than the lower limit. The PDF of sensitivity estimates are fat-tailed/positive skew. Uncertainty is not our friend.

But let’s play your “what if“ game. What if the thousands upon thousands of scientific papers are wrong. What if NASA, NOAA, JPL and 197 national science academies/institutions are wrong? What if the entire field of Paleoclimatology is wrong? Well, we invest in environmental protection (specifically including reforestation efforts as per the IPCC), we invest in updating an aging energy infrastructure, we invest in developing sustainable energy independence, we invest in improving air quality of urban environments, we develop a keener sense of the global impact of our actions and we support the sustainable growth of developing nations for “nothing”. Could this effort have been spent elsewhere? Of course. Is it wasteful or unnecessary? I don’t know about that.

This is where the political ideology of “skeptics” blinds them. They “know” that mitigation measures will “cripple the economy”…with absolutely no sources or evidence to support that. You cannot simply claim that it will “cripple the economy” and expect me to believe you. Show me a peer-reviewed study that mitigation measures will “cripple the economy” and I’ll show you 5 that say otherwise.

Now, let’s play the other side of the “what if” game. What if that blog you read is wrong? What if that libertarian think-tank is wrong? Well, fortunately, we do have some evidence and research to suggest what will happen (AR5 WGII and WGIII). The economic issues aside, imagine the cultural and social cost. If sea level rise, access to food or other climatic factors requires large numbers of people (most likely from poor nations) to relocate, we have huge social, political and ethical issues on our hands. Ask Europe how easy mass forced migration is to deal with.

Now, no doubt I have some biases based off political ideology that makes this easier for me to accept. I don’t deny that. Unfortunately, I also have the science to support me as well. Furthermore, following the science lead me to accept the conclusions. Unlike “skeptics” whose refusal to accept the conclusions lead them to reject the science.

This isn’t some sort of Pascal’s Wager as we can easily add in the probability of the events being true/occurring. Compare the probability of the first “what if” situation with the second one. Compare the consequences. You know, do a proper risk assessment using the data and evidence available to you.

You starting to see what I’m saying here beej67?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (Rconnor)

Show me a peer-reviewed study that mitigation measures will “cripple the economy” and I’ll show you 5 that say otherwise.

Argumentum ad Populum

Quote (Rconnor)

Unlike “skeptics” whose refusal to accept the conclusions lead them to reject the science.

If you claim to accept science why do you reject the best temperature measurements we have in the satellites? You seem more than willing to throw out science that doesn't agree with your conclusion. I'll give you a simple explanation of why I think the satellites are better. Its a network that is intended to measure temperature. The surface record is not. Its an ad hoc attempt to piece together disparate and heterogeneous data from weather stations that were never installed for such a purpose. The main reason that the plurality of weather stations are at airports is because their intent is for pilots to calculate lift. The idea that we can use this data to calculate global temperatures to within 100th of a degree centigrade is ridiculous. The data can be used to get a general idea but as it is presently being used is data rape.

Dont claim to accept sciece. You are biased and reject anything that disagrees with out of hand. Look at the above quote "Show me a peer-reviewed study that mitigation measures will “cripple the economy” and I’ll show you 5 that say otherwise." That means you wont even analyze the science. You have already concluded that you will throw it out based on "popularity". That is not science that is pure bias.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Has anyone charted the night time low tempetures over time? Is there any type trend showing there?

It should have a following of the day time trend, but what does it show?

What other data should show the same trend is not being presented? Those are the data points that should show validity to the theory, not the modeling.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
cranky108, night time lows are warming as well, actually slightly faster than day time highs (Alexander et al 2006, Braganza et al 2004, Zhou et al 2009, Vose et al 2005). This is consistent with greenhouse gas warming (and counter to warming by solar activity). From Vose et al 2005 (note DTR means Diurnal Temperature Range; a negative DTR anomaly means that nights are warming faster than days):

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Honing in the sensitivity estimate is of course important. However, the current range of sensitivity estimates does not mean the difference between needing mitigation or not, it’s the difference between how aggressive the mitigation measures need to be and how costly the adaptation measures will be

Yeah, and when you've got Vox talking about WW2 internment camps and socializing entire industries because of the scary black line, which is based on an ECS assumption that's basically pulled out of a hat, getting the ECS number right becomes paramount. Nailing it down to a real number, that everyone knows and agrees on, is paramount.

Quote (rconnor)

But let’s play your “what if“ game. What if the thousands upon thousands of scientific papers are wrong.

Oh can the rhetoric. It's not helpful. Thousands upon thousands of scientific papers have all disagreed with each other about ECS and set the "likely" range to be 1.5C to 4.5C, and nobody knows what the dang answer is. The scary black line from the Vox graph under a 1.5C scenario probably gives us 200 years to eliminate carbon. It'd be nice to know that before we start floating martial law as a solution.

It'd also be wise, generally, to identify which political forces are pushing for martial law as a solution, and be especially skeptical of those. Because history clearly shows that when those sorts of political forces tend to gain control, they tend to implement "very bad things." You may think it's a complete coincidence that the same political forces pushing for martial law to combat climate are also pushing for martial law to implement gun control even though we're at historic lows in gun violence, but some people don't think it's coincidence. I don't.

Policy is sticky, and science has never been it's objective.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

Yeah, and when you've got Vox talking about…
Yes, Vox articles are very often cited at IPCC conferences and Parliamentary hearings and are the true voice of the science behind climate change.

Beej67, I literally just finished saying “We can cut through the noise (of the media/politicians) by going straight to the science (in journals and from scientific institutions).” and then you decide to use some Vox article and never actually link the (publically available) paper the article is based off.

Quote (beej67)

…WW2 internment camps and socializing entire industries because of the scary black line
Internment camps? Socializing entire industries? What? Granted I spent much more time reading the paper than I did the Vox article but I think you severely misrepresent the article. The only thing close to “internment camps” would be the line “[In order to reach zero carbon by 2040] we’d be talking about World War II-style mobilization”. But this is to suggest how impractical staying below 2 deg C is, not suggesting the US should instill “internment camps”. Frankly, I think staying below 2 deg C is practically unobtainable as well.

Also, the term “dooms day” is your term, not Vox’s nor the authors’ of the paper. The paper simply states, if you want to stay below 2 deg C, here’s what the numbers look like. 2 deg C is not a “dooms day” scenario. The world won’t melt, we won’t drift into anarchy, it won’t be an existential threat to humanity. Nor is 2 deg C a hard on/off point, it’s all part of a sliding scale that worsens the warming it gets. 2 deg C is the point at which the impacts of climate change become more and more negative (read WGII).

The real take-home point of the article, which is quite sensible is:

Quote (VOX Article)

One final coda: as I've noted before, even if the world does crash through the 2°C limit, that would hardly mean it's game over. Because the risks and damages from global warming go up significantly the higher that temperatures rise, even 2.5°C warming is still preferable to 3°C, which is better than 4°C, which is way better than 5°C. There's never going to be a point when it's time to just give up.

Quote (beej67)

Oh can the rhetoric. It's not helpful.
Firstly, in order for no mitigation measures to be needed to stay below 2 deg C, sensitivity would have to be well below the IPCC range ( taking low values (such as TCR of 1.33K) would only slightly delay the 2 deg C point). In order for sensitivity to be well below the IPCC range, thousands of papers would need to be incorrect and so would the entire field of Paleoclimatology, which requires a ECS of 2.2 to 4.8 deg C to make sense of past changes of climate. Never did I say that was impossible, it certainly could be the case. However, when doing the proper risk assessment it is absolutely important to factor in the amount and quality of evidence suggesting the risk versus the amount and quality of evidence minimizing the risk. That’s not rhetoric, that’s just the situation. Now, I do admit that I worded it to reflect how improbably I feel that situation is. In that, I suppose I injected some rhetoric. However, it hardly changes the situation.

But speaking of rhetoric…

Quote (beej67)

It'd also be wise, generally, to identify which political forces are pushing for martial law as a solution, and be especially skeptical of those. Because history clearly shows that when those sorts of political forces tend to gain control, they tend to implement "very bad things."
No one is suggesting “martial law as a solution”. Where are you getting this from? The Vox article says nothing remotely close to suggesting “martial law as a solution”. You call my side “alarmist”, well that’s nothing more than unsupported, factually untrue fear mongering. It’s nonsense, beej67. You’re better than that.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (Rconnor)

Yes, Vox articles are very often cited at IPCC conferences and Parliamentary hearings and are the true voice of the science behind climate change.

No the IPCC does one better and cites world wildlife fund baseless propaganda.

"The Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by the year 2035"

Where did that come from?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Yes, Vox articles are very often cited at IPCC conferences and Parliamentary hearings and are the true voice of the science behind climate change.

Your sarcasm is funny to me because they are the voice of the science behind climate change policy. They and similar media.

The policy is not being based on the paper. The policy is being crafted by who profits from the policy. That's how policy works. The policy is then supported by Vox and similar.

Which is why we have to get the science as dead-on right as possible as soon as possible.

Quote (rconnor)

in order for no mitigation measures to be needed to stay below 2 deg C, sensitivity would have to be well below the IPCC range

What does this even mean? We were going to cross 2 degrees C even if mankind didn't exist at all. The only question is when.

Quote (rconnor)

No one is suggesting “martial law as a solution”.

Vox is implying it. (and similar) Based on that black line, which is pulled out of the ECS hat. All of IPCC dogma says "stay under 2C warming" and all Vox is saying is "it will take martial law to meet IPCC's target." You can't blame Vox. They're just drawing conclusions from the science as it's being presented to them. Vox's only questionable choice was taking a study at face value that was based on an ECS number that hasn't actually been verified by science. Thousands of papers worth of science.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Here is a nice little e-mail from IPCC lead author and head of the climate research unit Dr. Phil Jones on the science behind the 2 degrees Celsius number of the IPCC

Quote (Phil Jones)

The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for the globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which the 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air. I think it is too high as well. If it is 2 deg C globally, this could be more in Europe – especially the northern part. A better limit might be maintaining some summer Arctic sea ice!

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Here is a nice little table that shows to just what extent the IPCC rellies on peer-reviewed literature.



The claim that the IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed literature is a farce.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, UNEP, etc. all contain vital information for assessing climate change, especially the risks involved (hence why WGII and WGIII are more reliant on them). It would be impossible to compile a proper report without that data. However, they are not considered journal articles.

There’s a massive difference between those “gray sources”, which are essential and commonly used, and VOX articles, which are not.

Frankly, it’s a bit rich that the blog-driven “skeptic” camp would be bickering over the quality of the sources the IPCC uses.

(By the way, as I was interested in the total number of references in AR5, I decided to look it up. WGI has over 9200 references, WGII has over 12,000 references and WGIII has close to 10,000 references.)

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (Rconnor)

Government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, UNEP, etc. all contain vital information for assessing climate change, especially the risks involved (hence why WGII and WGIII are more reliant on them). It would be impossible to compile a proper report without that data. However, they are not considered journal articles.

Dont forget the World Wildlife Fund.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

In case I messed it, when did we have a stable climate after the last ice age? I don't remember that date in my history books.

And how much of this is caused by CO2, and how much is caused by CH4? These facts must be out there, as there is proposed regulation on both, and we want to be sure we don't reduce too much, or the tempeture would go the other way.

What is the expected fuel shift after coal-->Natural gas-->? Could it be wood, and what is the right amount of deforestation that can be allowed to support the wood economy?



RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (cranky108)

In case I messed it, when did we have a stable climate after the last ice age? I don't remember that date in my history books.
For around 10,000 years during the Holocene (Shakun et al 2012 or NOAA’s PCN or Pages 2K Consortium). Coincidently, this was the period were human civilizations were allowed to grow and thrive.

Quote (cranky108)

we want to be sure we don't reduce too much, or the temperature would go the other way
The natural carbon cycle appears to be well suited to support the temperatures of the Holocene. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are outside the natural cycle and thus throw off the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (nice little animation), leading to a shift from the Holocene to the Anthropocene (just as orbital tilts or large volcanic activity have lead to previous shifts in climate). However, stopping all CO2 emissions today would not cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations to plummet to zero. Once, you add carbon to the natural carbon cycle, it takes a very long time to remove.

A particular CO2 molecule only stays in the atmosphere from ~5 years before being absorbed by the upper ocean or biosphere (natural sink). However, that particular molecule is more-or-less replaced by CO2 released from the biosphere and ocean (natural source), which roughly balances the net change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This is the fast carbon cycle and it does not significantly impact the atmospheric concentration from year-to-year. It is the additional of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, from burning fossil fuels, that injects more CO2 into this system, thus raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The slow carbon cycle is the process that “removes” CO2 from the fast carbon cycle. This involves carbon absorbed by the deep ocean (ocean invasion), reaction with CaCO3 and with igneous rock and then with weathering. This process takes hundreds to thousands of years (Montenegro et al 2007, Archer and Brovkin 2008, Archer et al 2009). It can be seen in past climate changes as expressed in Archer et al 2009,

Quote (Archer et al 2009)

Sediment cores from the deep ocean reveal a climate event 55 million years ago that appears to be analogous to the potential global warming climate event in the future. Isotopes of carbon preserved in CaCO3 shells reveal an abrupt release of carbon to the atmosphere-ocean system, which took about 150 thousand years to recover.
The image below from, from this Nature article, illustrates this very well:


This is actually an incredibly important issue to understand. Once we reach certain CO2 concentrations, we can’t just magically reverse everything back to normal by stopping all emissions. This is something that adaptionists don’t seem to understand. They think that if it becomes a serious problem, we can then just stop emissions and everything will return to normal. That’s not the way things work. Solomon et al 2008 examines this issue. See the graph below which shows the long-term impact of abruptly halting all emissions at different points.


Now some might think that this is evidence that reducing our CO2 emissions is pointless. However this completely and utterly misses the point. What this tells us, very clearly, is that we need to prevent atmospheric CO2 concentrations from rising much higher because, once they do, they are stuck near those levels (and temperatures) for a very, very long time (on human scales). There’s no magic eraser when it comes to fiddling with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, we need to prevent it through mitigation efforts. As the title of a quasi-follow up paper to Solomon et al 2008, Matthews and Solomon 2013, says irreversible does not mean unavoidable.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (cranky)

What is the expected fuel shift after coal-->Natural gas-->? Could it be wood, and what is the right amount of deforestation that can be allowed to support the wood economy?

Technically, wood is carbon neutral. As long as the wood you use is new wood you planted over areas that weren't previously wooded that is.

Regardless, the IPCC thinks that planting trees warms the planet, so there's this great dichotomy between their doctrine and their modeling.

rconnor, the middle graph here:



...presumes that carbon is the only warming source of any significance. Correct? Just checking.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

And what of: "And how much of this is caused by CO2, and how much is caused by CH4? These facts must be out there, as there is proposed regulation on both, and we want to be sure we don't reduce too much, or the tempeture would go the other way."?

Because as we have developed coal and oil, we have released massive amounts of CH4. The CO2 released likely can be measuered but the CH4 flared, or seeped out likely can't.

Before you start regulating CO2, we need to be sure we are regulating the right carbon.

If CH4 is the real problem and not CO2, then there should be a credit for capturing and burning CH4, and not taxing CO2.

Just maybe coal mines should mined for CH4.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Cranky,
Methane in the atmosphere primarily comes from natural seeps. A new one was just discovered off Alaska that is releasing approximately 6 BSCF/day along a line nearly 200 miles long. There is a huge seep off the coast of Japan that is 10 times that size. There are certainly several thousand other methane seeps in the oceans of the world (otherwise the bacteria that thrive on CH4 would not be so ubiquitous around the world). Controlling methane in the atmosphere is a problem on the scale of controlling water vapor in the atmosphere. You can't do either one, so you must demonize CO2. Contemporary CH4 from the decomposition of biological wastes is something like 4% of the a VERY conservative estimate of the seeps. CH4 from industrial activities is less than 0.000001% of the seeps. EPA keeps trying to "fix" this problem by making industry report minuscule releases of CH4. It would be laughable if the data collection effort was not costing industry several billion dollars/year.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Is it plausible/conceivable that anthropomorphic co2 matters for naught with that volume of methane seepage? Knowing nothing about O&G, I would have never guessed the methane seepage amounted to that much. Does the co2 really even matter?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

ohh, dear ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Cranky108/orenynorsk, much of what zdas04 stated is correct but it requires some more context, especially when discussing it in terms of climate change (which I don’t believe was zdas04’s intent).

Zdas04 was quite correct in pointing out the large amount of methane released from seafloor methane seeps. However, an important point (relevant to climate change) is that not all of the methane released from seafloor methane seeps makes its way to the atmosphere. Most of it is dissolves into the water and is microbially oxidized (see the commentary from the lead author of Sharke et al 2015). While important areas of study, seafloor methane sweeps do not appear to have a very large impact on changes to atmospheric methane concentrations and, therefore, changes to radiative forcing (but it does have some impact). (Also note, “changes to” is important. Similar to solar activity, changes in forcings are essential to understanding the recent changes in our climate. Of course, in an absolute sense, solar activity and natural methane emissions are extremely important to our climate. However, they become less impactful when discussing the changes in our climate – which is the relevant topic.)

Atmospheric methane concentrations are important to climate change research, as it is a very potent greenhouse gas (interesting post on the relative “strength” of methane and CO2), and is actively studied by the scientific community (also see AR5 WGI Chapter 8). However, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is ~200x less than CO2 (methane is at ~1,800 ppb or 1.8 ppm while CO2 is at 400 ppm) and methane concentrations are not growing at the rate CO2 concentrations are (sourece – NOAA AGGI). Therefore, currently, the impact on radiative forcing is small (but not trivial) in comparison with CO2.

However, atmospheric methane may become very important as a feedback to a warming planet. Melting permafrost could release large amounts of methane readily to the atmosphere. This would be a positive feedback that would amplify warming (Lawrence et al 2008, Schuur et al 2015, Schaefer et al 2014). It is important to point out that very massive and abrupt releases of methane into the atmosphere are “very unlikely” (>10% probability) (source), so reports of runaway methane feedbacks do not appear to be well supported.

In the end, is methane important – absolutely, especially as a feedback to warming. Does it make CO2 irrelevant – no, in fact, it likely only adds more importance to reducing CO2 emissions.

…or, y’ know, you could think all this research is some attempt to demonize CO2 in order to instill freedom-restricting laws and regulations [source pending].

I might not necessarily agree with the latter but so it goes.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Given the climate history of the earth, is not warming inevitable? I'm puzzled as to how the aforementioned freedom-restricting laws and regulations (LOL), together with the benevolent thievery that will invariably accompany them, are going to change anything long-term? Wouldn't our resources be put to better use planning for the inevitable? Instead of re-building places like New Orleans, begin to relocate them? The only science that is truly settled is that we've got a lot of coastal cities that are going to end up in the drink. It's not if, but when. We know this from history. The greatest asset of human-kind is our adaptability to change, not putting our head in the sand and focusing on a possibly single, unverified cause. My opinion only, not really looking to enter the hot debate, but just wanted to sound off.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

IMHO warming and cooling are equally likely (together with a very small likelihood of "no change").

IMHO the scale of sealevel change is not certain.

Will "Big Business" be the ruination of the world? possibly.
Will "Big Government" save us? I don't think so.

The sooner we develop fusion power the better.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

'Instead of re-building places like New Orleans' FYI, even if there were no rise in ocean level, New Orleans will be below sea level. The fact is the sub-plate that New Orleans sits is sinking, and the drying of the soil has only added to the lowering of the ground level.

Are there any other city examples that anyone wants to use, that maybe sinking anyway?

Soil run-off has been adding to the land levels during flooding for a long time. But with our controlling of rivers , and river levels, most of the silt has been deposited in the ocean. This loss of soil has been a crime committed by our government, by the advice they have given to farmers over the years. The whole grow fence row to fence row, has caused so much over production, and additional water usage, that we are now paying farmers to not grow crops. Let alone cutting down trees that stop wind and water depletion of the soil. This along with growing crops that the climate is not suited for, which more depletes the water tables to support.

I'll get off my soap box now.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

There are some big sinkers, cranky. The worst is probably Mexico City, then Venice, with Houston and Shanghai also in trouble in areas.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

At an altitude of > 2,000 metres, we are all in very serious trouble if sea level rise affects the inhabitants of Mexico City!

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Yes, but I thought we were talking about sinking cities as well. Lowering of ground water means they have a lot of buildings where the ground floor is now the basement.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Again Mexico City is an example of a city that is sinking despite carbon levels. I mean it was built on a lake, what can you expect.

With the last earthquake Mt Everest dropped in elevation. Was that because of man made carbon?

All I'm saying is pick examples that make since with the topic you are explaining. Not things we all know is for a different reason.

Venice was built in a swamp, yes we know it is sinking.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (ornerynorsk)

Given the climate history of the earth, is not warming inevitable?
Possibly. We appear to have been at an optimum for temperatures for around 10,000 years during the Holocene after coming out of the last ice age (i.e. we’ve been sitting at the “peak” of temperatures for ~10,000 years). So it’s likely that the next major natural cycle is not going to warm us but cool the planet.

Outside of massive volcanic events or asteroids, most of Earth’s past changes in climate are due to Milankovitch cycles (i.e. changes initiated by orbital tilts and then largely driven by CO2 and methane releases), which have a roughly predictable period. The next cycle, which would cause a glaciation, we expect to occur in the next 50,000 to 100,000 years (Berger and Loutre 2002, Hollan 2000). So it’s very unlikely to be impactful before humans can significantly impact temperatures.

Furthermore, past changes in Earth’s climate took thousands to tens of thousands of years to develop. So while the Earth may eventually (and I mean “eventually” in geological time scales) warm beyond where we are now, the process would have been orders of magnitude slower than what we are currently seeing (and isn’t expected for hundreds of thousands of years). I’ll also point out when rapid changes in climate did occur in the past, the biosphere was severely impacted (see the end of the Permian, Triassic, etc.) (Jourdan et al 2014, Burgess et al 2014). “It’s changed before” is a really, really bad argument for mitigation skeptics.

Quote (ornerynorsk)

Instead of re-building places like New Orleans, begin to relocate them?
Possibly we could. Intra-country moves would be costly but likely doable in well-off nations. How about moves in poorer areas such as Indonesia? How about inter-country moves (i.e mass forced migration)?

Frankly, it’s a bit absurd when we are asking, rather nonchalantly, “couldn’t we just pick up and move entire cities/countries?” while categorically rejecting efforts to prevent such situations, believing they are misguided attempts to restrict our freedom [source pending] and bankrupt our economy [source pending]. And I don’t mean this to you personally ornerynorsk, plenty of other posters share the same thoughts. They (without references or supporting evidence) claim that mitigation measures will lead to economic ruin and, in the same breath, (without references or supporting evidence) claim that we can simply and seemingly painlessly adapt to the changes.

It’s a pretty terrible risk assessment when people reject the negative consequences of inaction (or focus on the “better” end of the uncertainty spectrum while ignoring the “worse” end), ignore the costs of adaptation and hyperbolize the costs of action. Rather, one should aim to understand the science of the situation (as is done in WGI), determine the possible range of consequences of inaction (as is done in WGII) and determine if action or inaction has a larger net cost/benefit (as is done in WGIII). It’s almost as if the IPCC is doing exactly what any reasonable engineer would do when faced with a risk assessment...

Quote (ornerynorsk)

My opinion only, not really looking to enter the hot debate, but just wanted to sound off.
Fair enough. I’m certainly not expecting to change your opinion. There’s the science of what we expect to happen (which I’ve tried to outline) and the subjective decisions on what we should do about it (which I’ve only discussed in response to someone else bringing it up); you seem to be discussing the latter. I’m just afraid that people’s opinions on the latter obscure their ability to examine the former…and then they use the obscured, predetermined examination of the former to further justify their opinion on the latter.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

So why is NOAA being so hush-hush about data that should prove there point? What are they hiding?

See this is the problem, being so restrictive with data just yells that there is a problem with the data.
If you want to know where the mistrust begins, this is a good example of where.

Maybe if congress were to pull the funding of NOAA, they might be more willing to share there data.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Am I to guess you are referring to Lamar Smith’s latest effort to control science request for information? If so, there’s no grand conspiracy of NOAA hiding the “Truth”, it’s just Lamar Smith is being a twit, again.

And what does this have to do with anything we just discussed (which, I thought was quite interesting)?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

“It’s changed before” is a really, really bad argument . . . .

Actually, it's quite a good argument. It's an exceptionally good argument. One needs to be a tad naïve to believe that the climate is not going to change, with or without the catalyst of human intervention. The sky is not falling, it merely continues to do what it has been doing for a very, very long time. Our atmosphere, the oceans, the plates, the celestial bodies, etc are not static. And in all of these things that are in constant flux there are patterns and cycles. To stop it you would need to stop the clockworks of the universe.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (ornerynorsk)

One needs to be a tad naïve to believe that the climate is not going to change, with or without the catalyst of human intervention.
Agreed. Every bit of evidence from paleoclimatology indicates that the Earth’s climate has changed throughout the past. Natural glacial-interglacial periods have been the norm and I would suspect will continue to. That bit of the science you seem to readily accept. However, it seems that’s where you stopped reading.

The same science that you use to, correctly, state that “it’s changed before” also states that the present changes are completely unexplainable by natural forces. (1) Natural warming from the past ice age ended around 10,000 and the Holocene started, (2) the next natural cycle would be a return to a glacial period, not more warming, (3) that is not expected to occur for ~50,000 to 100,000 years and (4) the current rate of warming is orders of magnitude faster than natural warming periods. So while “it’s changed before” naturally, no natural forcing can explain the current warming.

Furthermore, the same science you use to, correctly, state that “it’s changed before” also states that CO2 has always been instrumental in climate change and the planet is, indeed, quite sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. To believe that the current and future increases in CO2 concentrations will not impact the climate goes against the fact “it’s changed before”.

In addition, the same science you use to, correctly, state that “it’s changed before” also states that rapid changes in climate lead to substantial changes in the biosphere. Mass extinction events are almost always linked to past rapid changes in climate. We also know the extent of sea-level rise during rapid warming is certainly non-trivial. To think that the current rate of warming, which is very rapid in comparison to past changes, will have minimal impact on us goes against the fact “it’s changed before”.

So I’d highly recommend against using “it’s changed before” as an argument against mitigation efforts because “it’s changed before” actually demonstrates that (1) recent warming cannot be explained by natural cycles, (2) Earth is quite sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentrations and (3) rapid changes in climate have lead to significant disturbances in the biosphere and topology of the planet. “It’s changed before” may be one of the best arguments in support of mitigation. To think otherwise is simply selectively agreeing with certain aspects of the science, while ignoring the rest.

Of course I’m repeating myself but perhaps this time you might read the full post.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

With so much governmental action being proposed, based on a theory, why would we not want to debate the facts, models, and parts of the theory.

If there is mistrust of the data, models, or conclusions, then that also should be debated. So why is the data not being allowed to be viewed?
Again this is where mistrust begins. It continues with statements like "The science has been settled". No the science has not been settled until the data has been reviewed by the most hated critic, the voters.

The current movement is to hush up any speech that is counter to your thoughts, and that is about several things, and it appears to also include climate change. This is a bad trend that will allow a hatred to fester, and show up as a shooting somewhere, or worse. The debate needs to be public and open to keep things under control, and sadly (other than here), this is not happening.

The LA times now refuses to take letters to the editor from people who disagree that the climate change is human caused.

The point is all this limiting the debate, hiding data, or other such activity is harmful, and maybe more harmful than the change you are trying to prevent.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

The science won't be "settled" until we have a predictive model. An ECS uncertainty range of 1.5 to 4.5 is not predictive. The only thing that's settled is that the globe is warming. Nothing is settled regarding the efficacy of any given policy suggestion, scientifically. And I need go no further than IPCC AR5 to back that statement up.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Now our government is stating that jack-o-lanterns cause global warming. I would guess not as bad as all those uneaten school lunches that the kids don't like.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
An uncertainty range between negative to very negative is not a reason to do nothing.

Maybe an analogy will help you understand. Let’s say you do a risk assessment/FMEA on a system. You determine the possible range of outcomes without preventative maintenance is somewhere between machine failure and catastrophic failure that puts workers lives at risk. The risk probability distribution function is also right skewed. Your analysis also shows that the longer you delay starting preventative maintenance, the worse the situation will likely get and the impacts are largely irreversible. With preventative maintenance, you still might have machine failure (especially if you delay) but you eliminate (or drastically reduce) the risk of a worker fatality. Furthermore, you do a cost/benefit analysis on the preventative maintenance option versus the “do nothing” option and determine that net result of preventative maintenance are orders of magnitude better than the “do nothing” option. Would you take this as evidence to not do preventative maintenance? Because that is exactly what you seem to be doing with climate science and the need for mitigation.

But let's extend the analogy. Some accountant, who hasn’t really read your report but just doesn’t like the cost of preventative maintenance, says that your report is all garbage. He’s got a gut feeling that the observed deterioration of the system must be due to something that the preventative maintenance won’t change. Now, he doesn’t have any evidence to support this but, nevertheless, he’s sure you must be wrong. He throws out a number of things he think it could be. You demonstrate, by providing research and data to support your point, that all of them are incompatible with the evidence.

The accountant then says, ignoring your response to his last statement, “Risk assessment exercises cannot prove anything. We don’t know for sure that this will be a problem!”. He points to the “better” end of the uncertainty range, with his other hand covering the “worse” end, saying “Look at these numbers! They don’t look so bad." You reply by stating that you cannot perform a risk assessment by picking which numbers you like and ignoring the rest, especially when there is higher probability on the “worse” end than the “better” end. You also add that even though the numbers the accountant pointed to are “better”, they still will lead to damages without preventative maintenance.

A marketing manager, who also hasn’t really read your report, accuses you of doctoring the results to increase your maintenance budget. He’s got nothing to base this on but he’s pretty sure about it! He requests that your computer, files and calculations all be seized. Upon seizure, nothing substantial to support his allegations is found. So he does the same thing to your co-worker. Again, nothing comes out of it. You state that a sister factory performed a similar assessment on a similar system and came to the same conclusion and so have reports from other manufacturers across the industry. The manager takes this as evidence that the conspiracy runs even deeper than he originally thought! “Why are the voices of managers being suppressed by the heavy handed maintenance engineers!”, the manager cries.

This is the same situation we face, just with the stakes much higher and wider reaching. It is irresponsible (and that’s putting it lightly) to ignore the upper end of the uncertainty range, doubt the mean and incorrectly promote the low end as evidence in support of the “do nothing” option (when it’s absolutely not). But it gets worse than that. On top of this, some will trivialize the damages of the “do nothing” option, hyperbolize the costs of mitigation and ignore the costs of adaptation. Others just reject everything as some big conspiracy (to what end, no one knows). We see this again and again in these discussions. No one actually addresses it, they just move on to repeat the same statements that do one of the above.

Let's talk about what's settled an what's not. The climate is changing and human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible. Frankly, this is as settled as most science gets. It’s why most “skeptics” have retreated to the position of “lukewarmists”, acknowledging that humans cause climate change but that “it won’t be bad”. However, while the exact impact into the future is certainly not settled, it ranges somewhere between negative to very negative. To think the extent of the changes could be trivial, as “lukewarmists” believe, is to completely reject the fact “it’s changed before” (see my last post) and the field of paleoclimatology.

Of course, there is a chance the science could be wrong. However, you don’t do risk assessment by praying that the analysis is wrong. You certainly don’t do a risk assessment by praying that the analysis is wrong when the amount, extent and quality of evidence in support of the analysis is overwhelming. You don’t stop performing a risk assessment because there is uncertainty. In fact, not only is uncertainty a non-removable aspect of a risk assessment (no uncertainty means it’s no longer a risk assessment and a well-trained monkey could make the decision) but uncertainty requires you to be more careful of the risks, not less. A proper assessment of the situation continually concludes that mitigation measures range somewhere between cost effective (at the "better" end of the uncertainty range) to economically, socially and morally imperative (at the "worse" end). To disagree is to pit yourself against the vast majority of the scientific community and scientific literature. You can find refuge in blogs, op-eds and (false) comparisons between yourself and Galileo but I don’t find that nearly as comforting as some do.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

nice story, my own goes along the lines "how much life/health insurance do you have ?"

"The climate is changing" agreed, but "and human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible." not agreed.

"It’s why most “skeptics” have retreated ..." ... so now you're an expert on skeptic opinions as well ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (rb1957)

nice story, my own goes along the lines "how much life/health insurance do you have ?"
That's not a great analogy. You don't pay life and health insurance to reduce the risk of future health problems - it's not a preventative measure. In fact, life/health insurance is more like putting money into a global pot to help pay for adaptation. You could improve the analogy by changing it to "stop smoking and buy a gym membership".

You perform preventative maintenance to reduce the risk and cost of future maintenance issues and you perform mitigation measures to reduce the risk and cost of future climate change problems.

Quote (rb1957)

"The climate is changing" agreed, but "and human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible." not agreed.
I'm sorry but your opinion, without anything to support it, means very little in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

I should add that I see you as someone who seems to ask interesting, honest questions. Your someone who I enjoy engaging with. I'd gladly continue to try my best to address concerns you have, not as an attempt to change your opinion but to point you to the relevant information.

Quote (rb1957)

"It’s why most “skeptics” have retreated ..." ... so now you're an expert on skeptic opinions as well ?
I spend enough time reading "skeptic" blogs to get a feel for things (for example, I know that cranky's last few posts have just been regurgitating WUWT headlines). There's a large effort from the core of "skeptics" to distance themselves from the Sky Dragons Slayer fringe (AKA those that reject the greenhouse gas theory), heck even Anthony Watts does this. Now we're starting to see another shift where lukewarmists want to distance themselves from the core of "skeptics" that still reject the attribution aspect of climate change.

You're correct to say that it might not be "most" but you can start to see a trend.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@rb1957:

Re: "how much life/health insurance do you have ?"

Insurance is not really a good analogy for "preventive action". Insurance is essentially a bet that you hope you lose, and that you never "win" (never make a claim), because the payout will only go part-way to restoring the financial and other damages if the insured event arises. (Life insurance will pay your family in the event of your untimely death, but hopefully, your family would prefer that you had lived, rather than collect the payout.)

For most things that you insure, you also take preventive action - you service your car, you put smoke detectors in your house, and (maybe) you try to live a healthy lifestyle. This has a double benefit of reducing the probability of the insured event arising, and therefore lowers the cost of the insurance premiums. (Appropriate preventive measures are generally cheaper in the long-run than doing nothing, and then rectifying the failures.)

Returning to the topic: much of our current approach to climate change seems to be analogous to eating a 100% fast-food diet with no exercise, and having no health or life insurance. We are in denial about the "settled" science of the health impacts of diet and exercise, and we are making no financial provision for the highly probable outcomes.

If you want to pursue the insurance analogy - at the very least, we should be putting billions annually into an "insurance fund" which will pay for the probable outcomes of our current inaction. However, a much better plan would be to take some action now (start exercising and start eating a healthy diet), while also investing in some health / life insurance.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

An uncertainty range between negative to very negative is not a reason to do nothing.

It's also not a reason to implement martial law, and according to a wide range of answers within that uncertainty range, the only policy to stop AGW is global martial law. Links above.

We should definitely be doing something. We should be preparing like crazy to live on a warmer planet.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I wouldn't be trusting the accounting report if the past reports had been fudged, scary, logical, fanciful, accounting reasons not withstanding. I'd fire the lot of them, degrees, acclaim, reputations not withstanding.

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor:
I'm not a climate scientist, but a couple of years ago I started to put together some spreadsheets of annual average temperatures and population growth for three population centers for which long term temperature data are available (New York, Chicago and Baltimore) (see attached file.) My reasoning is that if climate change is caused by CO2 generated by human activity, then most of that CO2 must have been generated in population centers, due to manufacturing plants, power plants, automobile congestion et c.. Therefore, the local CO2 emissions should cause the local annual temperatures to increase and the long term trend line of annual average temperatures should show some correspondence to the trend line of population growth for the same period. I believe the data I put together do show some correspondence.
Any Thoughts?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (vzeos)

Therefore, the local CO2 emissions should cause the local annual temperatures to increase
Not exactly. CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse gas, meaning that it tends to disperse rather quickly and evenly throughout the atmosphere. So local CO2 emissions blend into the global emissions making the local impact of local emissions rather mute (note this is not necessary true for all pollutants and aerosols). Furthermore, regional impacts are more likely do to regional feedbacks than how much CO2 that region is pumping out. I would expect there is little causation between local emissions and local temperatures. Any correlation is likely due to local emission trends matching global emission trends.

Quote (vzeos)

the long term trend line of annual average temperatures should show some correspondence to the trend line of population growth for the same period
I don’t exactly agree. If a city’s population stalled or declined, I would expect a minor change in the temperature trend, for similar reasons as stated above. The global change in CO2 forcing plus or minus local feedbacks would be much more impactful on local temperature than population (or local emissions).

That’s actually what I believe we see in your plots. All three cities populations peaked around 1950 and then declined until about 1990, while the temperatures showed little change in warming trends. Now, it’s important to understand when we are talking about such small areas, regional feedbacks can be very impactful. So we need to be careful about making generalizations based off regional data.

Moving away from regional data and analysis, global population does show a correlation with global temperature trends. This is because there is a strong correlation between global population and global emissions. However, global temperatures are likely more intrinsically tied to total global emissions than global population. For example, significant reductions in emissions per capita would slow temperature warming even if populations continued to rise, so long as the total carbon emitted was significantly reducing. Conversely, less people emitting more per capita, such that the total emissions were rising, would cause temperatures to continue to rise. Population and even emissions per capita are much less impactful metrics to global temperatures than total emissions. Hence why total emissions (whether that be emissions from energy generation or loss of sinks due to deforestation), not population, is the key to addressing climate change.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/afghani...

Not climate related, but an example nonetheless of why a significant portion of us don't feel comfortable with the *government saving us yet again from a list of perceived ills that continues ad nauseam. The *government, time and again, has proven it's ineptitude, gross negligence, utter detachment from reality, and attitude of deception and condescension. Simply put, what basis do we have to trust them?

*government: including advisors, think tanks, providers of research for political ends, PAC's, lobbyists, et al. I simply choose the word government as a broad definition to describe those who would seek to wield influence in the development of further governance.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (v)

Therefore, the local CO2 emissions should cause the local annual temperatures to increase and the long term trend line of annual average temperatures should show some correspondence to the trend line of population growth for the same period. I believe the data I put together do show some correspondence.

Actually it's the opposite. CO2 concentrations are fairly uniform because the weather does a very good job of mixing the atmosphere up within the troposphere, so you're very likely to see CO2 concentrations of New York be pretty similar to those out in the middle of the Atlantic. You can google graphs of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the mid troposphere and the higher concentrations generally follow the jet stream.

On the other hand, if your spreadsheets indicated a relationship between population and warming in those city centers, then that would show that localized warming due to land use changes is a significant effect.

The IPCC claims that it's not, because they only want one boogy man. They think paving the planet while leaving CO2 concentration fixed would cool the planet off.

Quote (rconnor)

Moving away from regional data and analysis, global population does show a correlation with global temperature trends. This is because there is a strong correlation between global population and global emissions.

Please be honest here. There is also a very strong correlation between population and land use changes. In pure isolation of other effects, I could plot land use changes vs global warming and draw trend lines that are probably just as correlated as the same exercise with CO2 in isolation of other effects. I could also perform the exercise with raw human population, and get just as good a correlation.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

So if we are concerned that increased human population is the problem, why have we proposed, or done nothing to that effect?

Fix the problem, not put a bandaid on CO2.

If human population is the true problem, why are we feeding the hungry? Or paying people to be unemployed?

Because we care, a little. This whole scheme is not to fix the problem, but to tax the rich, and middle class.

The difference between fixing the real problem and fixing a political problem.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

There is also a very strong correlation between population and land use changes. In pure isolation of other effects, I could plot land use changes vs global warming and draw trend lines that are probably just as correlated as the same exercise with CO2 in isolation of other effects. I could also perform the exercise with raw human population, and get just as good a correlation.
Absolutely. Population (A), land use changes (B) and CO2 emissions (C) would all track global temperatures (D) very well. If A is correlated to B and C, then B and C will appear to be correlated as well. And if C is correlated to D, then A and B will appear correlated to D as well.

What you would need is a physical mechanism to demonstrate causation. There’s a vast amount of evidence to support C strongly causing D. Unfortunately, having a hunch does not count as a physical mechanism for B strongly causing D.

Quote (cranky108)

So if we are concerned that increased human population is the problem, why have we proposed, or done nothing to that effect?

Quote (rconnor)

Hence why total emissions (whether that be emissions from energy generation or loss of sinks due to deforestation), not population, is the key to addressing climate change.
I’m not sure you’re reading the same thread we are cranky…

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

If you expect me to agree with you, then you are mistaken.

I disagree with your conclusion, however you got there. And I'm not talking about the science.

The science always sounds good, until one gets into the details. Fine, it's not perfect, why hide stuff.

But the conclusion that more socialism, taxes, is going to solve this. I don't believe.
The government has just become too good at lying to believe there data has any merit.

The issue is not what the government must make us change things, it's that we must decide to make those changes for ourselves.
The government only makes things worse, and can't even manage to balance there money budget. And you expect them to balance a carbon budget?

We need to see that the wild dreams of the university professors are not real. We need to be more down to earth, and to sell it to the people. And the answers are not universal, but regional.




RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Science does not say anything or arrive at conclusions. People do. And each one assesses the data and arrives at conclusions based on their World View. This is why a progressive and a conservative might observe the identical body of data and come to radically different conclusions as to how we got to a particular point in time and what valid options ought to be addressed as a result.

There are attempts to squash the debate with appeals to "settled science" which is a statement that says, "My philosophical conclusions are true" (and yours are false by default). This comes down to a clash of world views, plain and simple. Since we don't think very clearly in our society today, the side with the best demagogue will sway the masses. Or they can make slick "truth" movies.

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Likewise, there's an attempt to squash debate with a continual drumbeat of "socialism, taxes," and the continued claim that everything is founded on a massive government conspiracy to suborn scientific research and thought. The "government" in the form of the NSA, with its secrecy, can't even keep the likes of Edward Snowden from blowing the whistle, yet, no one in the ranks of the so-called "alarmist" community has come forth to blow the whistle on this conspiracy, even though their mercenary tendencies could be so richly rewarded by the likes of the Koch brothers?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Absolutely. Population (A), land use changes (B) and CO2 emissions (C) would all track global temperatures (D) very well. If A is correlated to B and C, then B and C will appear to be correlated as well. And if C is correlated to D, then A and B will appear correlated to D as well.

What you would need is a physical mechanism to demonstrate causation. There’s a vast amount of evidence to support C strongly causing D. Unfortunately, having a hunch does not count as a physical mechanism for B strongly causing D.

Thankfully I don't need a hunch. I can see it from space. Here's my home town:



Yet the IPCC says urban heat islands cool the planet.

*shrug*

They'll figure out their error sooner or later. I just hope we haven't gone to global socialist martial law by then.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
So you believe the 3% of the land surface (source), so 0.87% of the entire surface, being converted into urban areas is responsible for a considerable amount of global warming? You think that urbanization is responsible for a considerable amount of the 9.94x10^22J increase in OHC from 2005-2014? That's about as wrong as your hunch that nuclear bombs were responsible for a considerable amount of global warming.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I know they're not cooling the planet.

The IPCC thinks that you cool the planet when you cut down trees.

That ain't right.

The most important point of my post, though, is that you cannot just point and say "But Correlation!" when arguing for CO2 reduction. Especially when you run into this pause stuff. I'll ask you straight up, rconnor, has CO2 stopped climbing through the last 15 years? Don't think so, but the temperature stopped climbing. So what sort of land use changes have happened over the last 15 years? Are land use changes more or less significant than in prior stretches of time? Your article (link for your 3% number) seems to indicate that over the last decade more people have moved to higher density areas in prior decades, thereby reducing their impact on land use footprint. If that's the case, could perhaps the land use part of the equation be undergoing a similar pause? Could perhaps land use correlate with warming better than CO2?

I'm just asking. The IPCC doesn't appear to be asking these sorts of questions, as near as I can tell. All the links you and I can brew up have to do with how land use affects carbon. They are single mindedly focusing on carbon.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Just a thought, but if more people moved to higher density areas, then we should expect land prices in less density areas to have fallen more while land prices in higher density areas should have risen.

That's economics. This can also be skewed if there was a population shift. But also if there was a population shift like this the urbon heat islands should have grown.

Now with the economic downturn with the rise of socialism in the US, the land prices should have had a general decrease, as the general population feels poorer.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (SkipVought)

And each one assesses the data and arrives at conclusions based on their World View
So are we to assume that NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, JAXA, Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint National Academies (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and USA), the editors at Nature and Science, nearly every head of state from the richest, most powerful countries to the poorest and the vast majority of published climate scientists all share the same ideological bias that would alter their view of the data? And, on top of that, they’re all pushing the science from a position of self-interest?

Compare that to the Koch-founded libertarian think-tank, CATO, or the free-market enthusiasts at GWPF or the right-wing tabloids such as the Telegraph or the Daily Mail, which all share a very common ideological background.

This is not an appeal to consensus, as I’m not listing these organizations/people to demonstrate that climate science is right. I am listing these organizations/people to demonstrate the incredibly broad and wide ranging background and world view that supports the science behind climate change and the incredibly specific world view that rejects the science behind climate change. This highlights the fragility of your argument. While world view is central to the “skeptic” position, it appears irrelevant or mute to the “believer” position. This is because science, far more than any other institution, is less politically or ideologically driven.

Ironically, the claims that climate science is politically motivated are almost always made by people who are politically motivated to say that. See the latest Lamar Smith nonsense as a prime example. Smith said “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda” and now wants NOAA to release all emails related to Karl et al 2015 (see the Nature article). However, this is after:
  • NOAA’s data and methods are already publically available. Smith apparently cannot use Google.
  • NOAA informed Smith of the data and methods. Smith apparently needed some help using Google.
  • NOAA meet with Smith to go through the data and methods. Smith is apparently still confused.
  • NOAA’s results are not significantly different than NASA, HadCRUT, JAXA, BEST (example). Is Smith going to subpoena NASA next?
  • The results of Karl et al 2015 lowered long-term trends and only slightly increased short-term trends. If anything, it shows how flimsy and non-statistically significant the “pause” was in the first place. You might need a magnifying glass to spot the difference. That Smith’s imaginary grand fudging of the data.
  • The “pause” never statistically existed in the first place (Cahill et al 2015, Foster and Abraham 2015, Rajaratnam et al 2015). It doesn’t surprise me that Smith is clinging to something that never actually existed.
It’s obvious, especially given Smith’s track record, that this has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the politics. The fact he’s wasting tax-payer dollars on these political-driven anti-science crusades should upset the right-wing voters. But they’re the same people cheering him on.

As I said before, climate change is not a left-wing versus right-wing debate. It’s a debate between the scientific evidence versus a ideologically-driven rejection of the science.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Yet the IPCC says urban heat islands cool the planet."

Not sure where your "factoid" comes from, since it's patently opposite what IPCC says

Quote (IPCC Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change)

pg. 325
Section 12.8 focuses more specifically on the co-benefits of mitigation options in human settlements, notably in terms of improved health, but also regarding quality of life (noise, urban heat island effect) and energy security and efficiency.

pg. 699
There are also several opportunities for heat island reduction, air quality improvement, and radiation management (geo-engineering) through building roofs and pavements, which constitute over 60 % of most urban surfaces and with co-benefits such as improved air quality (Ihara et al., 2008; Taha, 2008).

pg. 963
Design regulations can also be used to increase albedo or reduce urban heat island effects, through requiring light-coloured or green roofs or regulating impervious surfaces (Stone et al., 2012), as in Montreal and Toronto (Richardson and Otero, 2012).

pg. 975
Even an action like shading parking lots, which is generally thought of in the context of limiting the urban heat-island effect, can bring air pollution co-benefits through reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOC) and, thus, low-level ozone formation from parked vehicles (Scott et al., 1999).

pg. 977
The urban heat island (UHI) effect presents a major challenge to urban sustainability
So, it's pretty clear that IPCC's published position is that the heat island effect is detrimental and in no way beneficial.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
beej67, on top of what IRstuff has pointed out to you, please explain how urbanization has caused:
  • Rural temperatures to warm at about the same rate as overall warming, (BEST data)
  • Glaciers and sea ice to melt,
  • OHC to increase,
  • The stratosphere to cool while warming the surface,
  • A TOA radiative imbalance,
  • ...I could go on
Physical mechanism - we've got one, you don't. We've got science. You've got cognitive dissonance a hunch.

(You bringing up the "pause" as some silver bullet against the science in this thread is rich. Especially considering you've completely ignored discussing my detailed debunking of the "pause" up to this point.)

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (IR)

"Yet the IPCC says urban heat islands cool the planet."

Not sure where your "factoid" comes from, since it's patently opposite what IPCC says

AR5 8.3.5 says there's no difference between a forest and a tennis court, and land use changes during human population expansion which have defoliated half the planet have produced a net cooling effect.

Quote (rc)

beej67, on top of what IRstuff has pointed out to you, please explain how urbanization has caused:
Rural temperatures to warm at about the same rate as overall warming

convection

Quote:

Glaciers and sea ice to melt,

convection

Quote:

OHC to increase,

convection

Quote:

The stratosphere to cool while warming the surface

Ironically, convection. Or, rather, lack of convection. The stratosphere doesn't mix with the troposphere because the temperature gradient is positive through the stratosphere. It's why there's no clouds up there. So obviously any additional heat added to the troposphere via surface effects from land use changes won't make it up to the stratosphere.

Quote:

TOA radiative imbalance

This is the part where a tennis court and a forest have the same net effect on the climate, right?

I am in no way saying carbon isn't responsible for some of our AGW. I think it does. But in no way do I buy the idea that the massive, incredibly extensive terraforming that has accompanied the human population explosion has not only had no climate impact, but has had a significant net cooling impact. That's simply unbelievable. Yet that's what the IPCC is trying to sell, to try and inflate the relative warming effect of carbon.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
That's some magical concrete that's able to absorb all that heat! Let's do some quick math to see just how ridiculous this is. What would the forcing (W/m^2) of beej67's magical concrete have to be if urbanization was responsible for just 50% of the OHC increase from 2005-2014.

OHC increase from 2005-2014 x 50% = 10x10^22 J x 0.5 = 5X10^22 J
Convert to Watts = 5x10^22 / 283824000 = 1.76x10^14 W
Surface area of urban areas = % urban areas * surface area of Earth = 0.0087 * 510x10^12 = 4.4x10^12 m^2
Forcing of beej67's magical concrete = 1.76x10^14 / 4.4x10^12 = 40 W/m^2!!!!

That's ~40x more powerful than CO2 forcing (w/o feedbacks) and 17x more powerful than the IPCC radiative forcing estimate (2011 relative to 1750). And remember, that's only considering 50% of OHC and nothing else.

Beej67, it's obvious that you've been right all along. I humbly admit that I was wrong and your Magical Concrete Theory must be correct. I recommend you publish these findings immediately! Might I recommend trying the Journal of Perpetual Motion Machines.

(and I'm tired of showing you that the IPCC finds total land use albedo change to be very small (-0.15 +/- 0.1 W/m^2) and consider carbon released from land use changes (180 +/- 80 PgC, page 467) to be much more significant.)

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
In the universe of the Magical Concrete Theory, where facts don't matter and anything is possible (...except for climate science being correct)!

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@beej67:
You said:
AR5 8.3.5 says there's no difference between a forest and a tennis court, and land use changes during human population expansion which have defoliated half the planet have produced a net cooling effect.
You did not provide any support or interpretation for this claim, so I went and had a look for myself: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/...

Firstly, there is not one reference in the AR5 document to "tennis court" that I could find (certainly not in Section 8.3.5) - surely you're not making stuff up, or twisting their words?

What I DID find is a rational discussion of the types of human-induced land cover change over the past millennia, and a discussion of both positive and negative impacts of land use change on multiple factors such as albedo (crop lands are generally lighter than forests, but some crops are darker than their native exposed soils), evapo-transpiration rates, surface roughness (which impacts local wind speeds), root depth (affects the water table depth), rainfall run-off rates, and so on.

The following extract from the conclusion (Section 8.3.5.6) sums up their assessment rather better than introducing spurious claims about forests and tennis courts:

There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo —is about as likely as not.

[Emphasis preserved from the AR5 source document.]

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"about as likely as not." sort of sounds like it was not studied at any depth.

Interesting note about wind speeds, as I would have suspected. That removing trees tends to increase wind speeds. This was why in the past it was recommended that farmers line the edge of there fields with a buffer of trees. They no longer recommend that, and I have found no reference as to why. The reason for the buffer was to reduce wind errosion, and maybe to provide habitat for native wild life.

I suspect that the reason to stop recommending the tree buffer, was that this was only regionally needed, and was not popular outside the plains states.

Again, solutions should be directed at regions and not general solutions that don't work everywhere. But a big government does not think like that.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

No cranky, "as likely as not" simply means "even odds". You can study a coin flip as hard as you like and arrive at the same conclusion.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@cranky108:
"about as likely as not." sort of sounds like it was not studied at any depth.
I suggest you re-read the whole paragraph that I copied verbatim - or better still, go back to the link I gave https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/... and read the whole of Section 8.3.5.

"As likely as not" means exactly what it says - some of the known impacts of land use change tend to increase surface temperature, while others tend to decrease surface temperature. Some of the models which try to account for as many combined factors as possible suggest a slight overall increase in surface temperature, while others predict a slight decrease in surface temperature, and as yet, there is no overall consensus (there's that word again!) as to whether the overall impact is positive or negative.

Does this mean that there is no correlation between land use change and surface temperature? Absolutely not! But all of the models suggest a smaller overall impact than the effects of CO2 etc. (And as far as I know, none of them say "there's no difference between a forest and a tennis court"!)

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (jhardy1)

Firstly, there is not one reference in the AR5 document to "tennis court" that I could find (certainly not in Section 8.3.5) - surely you're not making stuff up, or twisting their words?

All their albedo studies are based on the idea that land use only changes the color of the land cover, that being tied to reflectivity. Based on this idea that the color of the planet is all that matters for land use accounting, they have presumed that a green tree and a green tennis court are a net zero change in the climate. They further state that deforestation in areas where it might snow on occasion means that there's more snow on the ground to bounce more light back out, so deforestation cools the planet.

That's 8.3.4's line of reasoning.

It ain't right. You can't deforest half the planet and think that the ground where the deforestation occurred is going to get cooler.

There are many possible reasons why it isn't right. One is that forests create their own clouds through transpiration, and clouds bounce light back. Deforestation actually reduces cloud cover. (cloud cover btw is another huge hole in the science - they are very uncertain how cloud cover plays into everything) Another is that energy caught up in biological and hydrologic processes is energy not experienced as heat. Another is energy bound up in chemical bonds from biological processes becoming interned into the earth. There's probably a lot more than just that. Sooner or later the IPCC is going to figure this out. You can call me crazy, and fine, but one day when the science is finally settled I'm going to bump this thread. Massive global deforestation does not cool the surface of the planet. It simply doesn't. It doesn't help your CO2 issues either, but the raw climate forcing from deforestation is not to cool the planet.

Quote (ipcc)

There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo —is about as likely as not.

At its very best, this clearly states "the science is not settled." But that's not at all what the models are saying. All the models that everyone's hanging their hats on say deforestation is cooling the planet. See:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warmi...

Now you tell me, is Bloomberg lying?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

So are you implying that black solar panels, are contributing to global warming, when they are placed anywhere except dark colored surfaces?

Bloomberg could be lying, but I do know he has an agenda, and I would not trust any story with his name on it as telling both sides of the story.

As far as IR light is concerned, I believe water is close to a black body. So one could conclude covering water with anything would be reducing warming.
I see no projects for that.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

Based on this idea that the color of the planet is all that matters for land use accounting, they have presumed that a green tree and a green tennis court are a net zero change in the climate.
Wrong. They don't assume a net zero change solely based off albedo; they factor in many different dimensions. Either actually read the report or, better yet, just listen to people that have actually read the report. Jhardy1 already explained this to you:

Quote (jhardy1)

What I DID find is a rational discussion of the types of human-induced land cover change over the past millennia, and a discussion of both positive and negative impacts of land use change on multiple factors such as albedo (crop lands are generally lighter than forests, but some crops are darker than their native exposed soils), evapo-transpiration rates, surface roughness (which impacts local wind speeds), root depth (affects the water table depth), rainfall run-off rates, and so on.

Quote (beej67)

One is that forests create their own clouds through transpiration
Not novel. The IPCC already discusses that, despite your claims they have "ignored it". Actually read the report.

Quote (AR5 WGI 8.3.5.5, page 687)

Indeed, in addition to the impact on the surface albedo, land use change also modifies the evaporation and surface roughness, with counterbalancing consequences on the lower atmosphere temperature. There is increasing evidence that the impact of land use on evapotranspiration—a non-RF on climate—is comparable to, but of opposite sign than, the albedo effect, so that RF is not as useful a metric as it is for gases and aerosols. For instance, Findell et al. (2007) climate simulations show a negligible impact of land use change on the global mean temperature, although there are some significant regional changes.



Numerical climate experiments demonstrate that the impact of land use on climate is much more complex than just the RF. This is due in part to the very heterogeneous nature of land use change (Barnes and Roy, 2008), but mostly due to the impact on the hydrological cycle through evapotranspiration, root depth and cloudiness (van der Molen et al., 2011). As a consequence, the forcing on climate is not purely radiative and the net impact on the surface temperature may be either positive or negative depending on the latitude (Bala et al., 2007).
Or

Quote (AR5 WGi 2.5.3, page 205)

Additional regional effects that impact evapotranspiration trends are lengthening of the growing season and land use change.

Quote (beej67)

Another is that energy caught up in biological and hydrologic processes is energy not experienced as heat. Another is energy bound up in chemical bonds from biological processes becoming interned into the earth.
Oh, you mean the fraction (% of total biomass reduced) of a fraction (% of “extra” energy absorb and not emitting back to space) of a fraction (% of “extra” energy now “available” in the “measurable climate” that wasn’t before) of 0.08% (% of the entire energy absorbed by photosynthesis) that we already discussed? It was wrong back then and I don’t believe physics has changed since that point.

Quote (beej67)

[The IPCC assumes] paving over the entire planet in a carbon neutral fashion would cool us off.
Wrong from the beginning.

Quote (AR5 WGI 8.3.5.4, page 687)

Urban areas have an albedo that is 0.01 to 0.02 smaller than adjacent croplands (Jin et al., 2005).

Quote (AR5 WGI 8.3.5.2, page 686)

Deforestation has a direct impact on the atmospheric CO2 concentration and therefore contributes to the WMGHG RF as quantified in Section 8.3.2. Conversely, afforestation is a climate mitigation strategy to limit the CO2 concentration increase.

Pretty much everything you’ve said the IPCC said, is wrong. Either you haven’t actually read the report, you don’t understand the report or you’re purposefully misrepresenting the report (and possibly a combination thereof).

Quote (AR5 WGI 8.3.5.6, page 688)

It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface—accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo—is about as likely as not.

Quote (beej67)

At its very best, this clearly states "the science is not settled."
No, this clearly states that the net impact of land use changes is small, even at the lower and upper bounds of the uncertainty. Land use changes have had a small impact on climate change when compared to CO2 emissions. Your little hunch is wrong.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (crank108)

So one could conclude covering water with anything would be reducing warming. I see no projects for that.
And those people that conclude that would be insane (or at the very least grossly ignorant). You see, there are these little things called phytoplankton that depend on solar energy and are kind of important to aquatic ecosystems. But let’s ignore the many obvious environmental issues with the project, how much would it cost?

Never mind a giant blanket over the ocean Cranky, how about we build a giant space mirror that reflects incoming sun light! I see no projects for that! Why? Well because the evil climate czars can’t profit off the construction of a giant space mirror! I think we’ve uncovered something here Cranky!

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@beej67:

All the models that everyone's hanging their hats on say deforestation is cooling the planet. See:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warmi...
Now you tell me, is Bloomberg lying?


I'm not sure that a Bloomberg Business pictogram with a 3-sentence "grab" ("So If It's Not Nature, Is It Deforestation? Humans have cut, plowed and paved more than half the Earth's land surface. Dark forests are yielding to light patches, which reflect more sunlight - and have a slight cooling effect.") is really the best-credentialled way to summarise "all the models" on this issue!

And I think it's an absurd oversimplification to use this piece of popular media to make the claim that "all the models that everyone's hanging their hats on say ..."!!!

(And I still haven't seen a reference which equates forests and tennis courts.)

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (jhardy)

I'm not sure that a Bloomberg Business pictogram with a 3-sentence "grab" ("So If It's Not Nature, Is It Deforestation? Humans have cut, plowed and paved more than half the Earth's land surface. Dark forests are yielding to light patches, which reflect more sunlight - and have a slight cooling effect.") is really the best-credentialled way to summarise "all the models" on this issue!

from the link:

Quote:

Methodology
NASA's Model

Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric chemistry.

The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland.

A Global Research Project

GISS produced the results shown here in 2012, as part of its contribution to an international climate-science research initiative called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase Five. Let's just call it "Phase-5." ...

These things are what's driving policy.

You cannot insulate yourself from the obligation to form determinate, predictive models with language like this:

Quote (ipcc)

There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2, but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo —is about as likely as not.

...and then turn around and use those models to support policies like this:

Quote (vox)

In the United States, the necessary cuts for 2°C would require policies exponentially more ambitious than anything the Obama administration has been doing through the Environmental Protection Agency. An "equity" approach would require getting to zero carbon by 2040 — just 25 years. We'd be talking about World War II–style mobilization. Congress would likely need to get involved, either by enacting carbon pricing or other policies to massively scale up zero-carbon energy.

We must get the modeling right first. And by "right," I mean the models must be predictive. The most important lesson to learn from the pause is that the models were not predictive, even when the IPCC guaranteed to us that they were.



The fact that the "most likely range" for ECS keeps getting wider and wider with each AR release, instead of getting narrower and narrower, means that the science is not good enough yet to support the policy that the models claim is required. And that's all there is to it.

I patiently await better science. I'm happy to see as much money as possible thrown at that science.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2
I'm just a guy, sitting in my sun room, reading the news and sipping my favorite adult beverage: peach tea.

Over the past 40-50 years I have been interested, amused and angered at the AGC/AGW controversary: amused at the changes in the direction of the winds and angered at the excuses made to waste my money, tilting at windmills.

So today I ran across this article that seems to fit in some way, to this thread's topic. At least the "pause" is mentioned.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-r...

Enjoy! 🔆

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconner)


So are we to assume that NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, JAXA, Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint National Academies (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and USA), the editors at Nature and Science, nearly every head of state from the richest, most powerful countries to the poorest and the vast majority of published climate scientists all share the same ideological bias that would alter their view of the data? And, on top of that, they’re all pushing the science from a position of self-interest?

They might very well share the same ideological bias, or at least give lip service to it, as they are riding a wave in a mutual admiration society and reaping the huge financial and social benefits.

Look at those few who have the intestinal fortitude to go against the flow, like Philippe Verdier you "speak" out and you are punished by the establishment. So most people just fall in line, parrot the line and reap the benefits. Its human nature regardless the level of education. Look at history. Progress has often been achieved by a lone brave soul, sword drawn against the dragon of the current paradigm. Of course, even "progress" will be hotly debated.

I happen to think that an approach like THIS is more appropriate.

Again, I'm sitting in my sun room, reading the news, sipping my peach tea. The data and subsequent detailed arguments are down in the weeds. This is way over my head (I have presently no pay grade, although it would have been well over mine) but I've been around long enough to have observed human nature in my time and that recorded in the past. The way this crusade is being conducted is not productive. Those with dissenting views are persecuted; that the science is "settled" is the mantra. I've seen this and the outcome is not good. On THAT fact along, I continue to be a skeptic of this movement and the way that it's being conducted.

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
SkipVought,

The article related to the grand solar minimum is, umm, rather odd (ex. it talks about how cold 2014 was – the hottest year on record…). Firstly, the meeting was held in the summer and has already been discussed since July. Why that news outlet is 4 months late, I’m not sure. Secondly, it’s already been discussed here. See Part 1 – 1 c) Solar. Even if we go into a grand solar minimum and stay there (which is far from certain), it will not impact global warming that much. See Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010 and a graphical representation of their results here and another article here.

Quote (SkipVought)

They might very well share the same ideological bias, or at least give lip service to it, as they are riding a wave in a mutual admiration society and reaping the huge financial and social benefits.
So when nearly all the world’s scientists and scientific institutions agree on something, it’s usual because they are out for “huge financial and social benefits”? Should we extend this logic to biologist that support Darwin’s theory of evolution? Could it not be because they independently agree on the same theory due to the strength of the evidence supporting it?

Also, please explain how the average climate scientist gains “huge financial and social benefit”. The average climate scientist earns $70,770/year. A tenured professor at Penn State department of geosciences (home of the nefarious con-man, Michael Mann) earns, on average, $120,000/year. Apparently, not only are climate scientists really bad at science, they are also really bad at milking their financially motivated agenda!

Do you feel that Exxon and Koch are funding “skeptic” think-tanks as a charitable effort to protect the people? You feel that the plot idea in the following quote is actually a reasonable summary of reality?

Quote (Scott Westerfeld)

Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

Quote (SkipVought)

intestinal fortitude to go against the flow
Do you feel that young earth creationists also have the “intestinal fortitude to go against the flow” or are they just wrong? The quotes below sum up the whole Galileo Gambit rather well:

Quote (Carl Sagan)

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Or

Quote (Robert L. Park)

It is not enough to wear the mantel of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.
“Skeptics” sometimes skip that last part…

Also, see my response to beej67 at 16 Oct 15 22:00. There is simply no evidence of wide-spread suppression of contrarian voices in published climate science. Contrarian scientists have been lead authors on many IPCC chapters. Contrarian papers are sometimes published in prominent journals; the fact that more are not is not necessarily evidence for suppression but, more likely, because there simply is not a lot of valid scientific support for the contrarian position. As I said, if and where they are valid, papers and scientists that go against the main stream view are published, referenced and discussed by the scientific community.

And what do you make of Lamar Smith’s actions? Righteous crusade for the people against the evil scientists? RICO against Exxon is a witch hunt and an abuse of political power but Lamar Smith’s subpoena is valid (despite having ZERO evidence to support it) and an example of protecting the people? Playing the victim doesn’t work when you, in the same breath, promote the political attacking of scientists on the other side.

Now, of course you can say – it’s all a circus and we should just stick to the science. And I would whole-heartedly agree with that. Lamar Smith, Exxon, some weatherman on French television are largely irrelevant to the body of science; I want to (and have tried to) stick with talking about the science.

--------

As an aside, one thing I often see is the “Now, I’m just a simply man that doesn’t spend a lot of time on this climate gobbledygook and I don’t like getting dragged into this argument” act followed by “but climate change is all wrong”. If the former is true, why state the latter? Or if you strongly believe the latter, doesn’t the former weaken your position? It always feels like an attempt to isolate oneself from criticism prior to posting a strong (and often ill-informed) opinion on the subject.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
With regard to Roy Spencer’s graph that beej67 posted (largely ignoring the criticism of his land use change hunch)…

Spencer, a professional climate scientist, is using a four-year baseline period. A four-year baseline period is far too short to give accurate results but it would be great to graphically overplay a short-term discrepancy. Spencer was very likely aware of both facts, ignoring the former because of the latter. Most “skeptics” won’t know enough to pick up on it.

Spencer, a professional climate scientist, is using the average of model runs to compare against observations over the short term. The average of model runs would be something close to an ENSO neutral state and, so, to compare against a short-term negative PDO period would be a false comparison but, again, would be great to graphically overplay a short-term discrepancy. Spencer was very likely aware of both facts, ignoring the former because of the latter. Most “skeptics” won’t know enough to pick up on it.

Spencer, a professional climate scientist, is using a 5-year running average of the ensemble mean, not the ensemble mean of the 5-year running average of each individual run. This method amplifies the issue above by, incorrectly, blending out the variability in model runs and overstates the La Nina impacts near the end of the observed data but it would be great to graphically overplay a short-term discrepancy (during a short-term, La Nina dominated period). Spencer was very likely aware of both facts, ignoring the former because of the latter. Most “skeptics” won’t know enough to pick up on it.

So, Spencer used every tool at his disposal to make the discrepancy look as large as possible. It’s the biggest difference between Roy Spencer the professional climate scientists (who needs to be honest) and Roy Spencer the blogger (who needn’t be honest). If he presented this graph at a professional conference, he’d (rightly) be laughed off the stage (and likely would have gone home to his blog to play the victim game). While I don’t expect his audience to know better, he certainly does.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

With regard to Roy Spencer’s graph that beej67 posted

Just one of dozens I could have grabbed from my google image search. The point stands across all of them, no matter how they compute running averages, that the models of the 90s were not predictive. You need a predictive model before you go declaring global martial law, and the policy implication of most models nowadays say the only way to prevent 2dC rise is global martial law.

It is imperative that the science gets better before we go declaring global martial law.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"The point stands across all of them, no matter how they compute running averages, that the models of the 90s were not predictive. You need a predictive model before you go declaring global martial law, and the policy implication of most models nowadays say the only way to prevent 2dC rise is global martial law. "

If, and only if, that was something that needed to be predicted. For a phenomenon that's going to take a a century to materialize, predicting accurate behavior on a year-to-year basis is not required if there is no longer term impact. If, and only if, the so-called pause is a long-term phenomenon, then yes, the models would, and should, account for that.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

A thought experiment for beej67 (and others):

Suppose, just for a moment, that the "consensus" predictions are substantially correct, and that CO2 emissions are in fact driving global temperatures up, and that many of the predicted consequences (sea level rise, changed weather patterns, impacts on land use, etc) do in fact eventuate to varying degrees, generally within the ranges that the IPCC predicts (even if they are near the lower bounds).

What tests do you propose so that we will KNOW that the models are correct, and we need to respond?

What fraction of the world's climate scientists in "consensus" would you consider to be sufficient to enable government policy and action? 90%? 95%? 99%% 100%?

How many "contrary" voices would be sufficient to veto taking any action based on the "consensus" view? (Won't there always be some people arguing that other causes need to be considered, or that global warming is in fact a good thing, or that we should just learn to adapt?) What qualifications are acceptable to permit a contrary voice to be given equal weight to the "consensus" view of climate scientists? Would one such voice be enough to prevent us taking any action? Or should it be ten, or a hundred? How do we decide if a "contrary" view is sufficiently powerful to over-rule the "consensus"? And importantly, WHO decides?

When will we definitively KNOW that the models were right? In 2050. when we are able to add another 35 years of data to the analysis? Or 2100?

What scale of actual consequence would be acceptable before we need to respond? What fraction of the land mass of low-lying countries such as Tuvalu, Bangladesh etc can we permit to be submerged? How do we decide whether the sea level rise is caused by CO2 emissions or other causes? Who decides that the developed world can carry on emitting CO2 while the developing world bears so much of the risk? Who will compensate the impacted communities? Where will the displaced people go?

And how should we respond globally when we have carried on emitting CO2 for a few more decades without undertaking any significant remediation measures in the mean time, but we now understand that what was "consensus" opinion in 2000-2015 is now acknowledged almost universally?

It's one thing to argue for caution, and argue that a full-scale "worst-case" response is not yet justified, but you'd better have a "Plan B" in case the outcomes are worse than the "best case" scenario.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (jhardy1)

What tests do you propose so that we will KNOW that the models are correct, and we need to respond?

If the IPCC is claiming that 2 degrees C is doomsday, then I want all the models to be tight enough that the IPCC's ECS band of "most probable" values for ECS to be within half a degree C. Otherwise the projections on which the policy is crafted are pointless.

Do the math yourself. If the ECS is 2, then we can double CO2 before doomsday. If the ECS is 4, then we can only increase CO2 by 50% before doomsday. Right? That's a huge difference for planning purposes, and the IPCC range is even wider - it's 1.5 to 4.5.

Quote (jhardy1)

What fraction of the world's climate scientists in "consensus" blah blah blah

I'm taking the IPCC at face value here, man. I presume their consensus is correct, and that they're not lying when they say ECS to CO2 is somewhere between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C per doubling. If that's their consensus, fine. The error bands on that consensus are not tight enough to use that consensus to craft policy.

Quote (jhardy1)

It's one thing to argue for caution, and argue that a full-scale "worst-case" response is not yet justified, but you'd better have a "Plan B" in case the outcomes are worse than the "best case" scenario.

My personal opinion is that Plan B should be Plan A, which is prepare to live on a warmer planet. The 50 billion dollars spent on carbon initiatives that the EPA models themselves show zero effect on global climate could be a lot better spent on levies. (or rain forest preservation) We know for a fact that dollars spent in preparation are going to be well spent, because the globe was going to warm regardless. All the mitigation in the world can at best only slow it down.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

another thought experiment ... if the sealevel increases, by how much ? 6" 2' ? The consequences and pre-emptive mitigation are very different.

how to address possible changes in rainfall, distribution and amounts ?

sure a bunch of people will become homeless if the sealevel rises 2' ... but maybe we can relocate them to the newly de-iced Greenland ? that is meant as a joke (and not a serious proposal), although it points to new opportunities that will arise with the new world order.

If we change our FF burning habits now, and significantly, how long will it take the environment to adjust ?

what are we going to do in the future if we do this now (change our FF burning habit at considerable expense) and yet things don't turn around ? want to bet some smart a$$ will be saying "told you so, you should've listened sooner, done more" maybe CO2 isn't the worst thing since sliced bread ? maybe there's something else driving the climate ??

how will we ensure all countries change the same ? most 3rd world and developing economies say this is a 1st world plot to stifle their growth.

what'd happen if we doubled our fusion research budget ?

why doesn't gasoline cost $10/liter ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Beej67, no one thinks that 2 deg C is “doomsday”. No one is advocating for martial law. Please attempt to build less ridiculous straw men. Also, the irony of calling one group “alarmists” based off a straw man of their opinion on the impacts, while using an straw man of their opinion on mitigation measures to generate fear of mitigation, is palpable.

Moving on, you need to understand two important things about climate change mitigation. Firstly, 2 deg C is not a hard limit; 2.5 deg C is better than 3 deg C and 3 deg C is better 4 deg C. All have cost/benefits that, increasingly, favour mitigation rather than straight adaptation. The goal is to stay as low as possible.

This leads into the second aspect you need to understand – an ECS of 2 doesn’t mean we will warm 2 deg C and then magically stop. If we continue to raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2, we will continue to warm the planet. At our current rate, a TCR of 1.3 or 1.8 is irrelevant because the slower rate of warming is dwarfed by the very rapid rate of CO2 concentration increase (it pushes things out by ~10 years). I’ve repeatedly said this to you and you’ve repeatedly ignored it.

What this means is taking a low sensitivity value or a high value, the difference is a matter of years or maybe a decade or so; it doesn’t mean that much to policy. Even taken a low sensitivity value, we need to get to near net zero emissions as fast as practically, socially and economically possible.

I’m actually of the opinion that even a very high ECS/TCR will not impact the pace of policy that much. As political change is slow but cultural change is even slower, this inertia will likely dictate the pace of policy, more so than climate sensitivity. ECS/TCR will, in my opinion, just change what temperature we reach once we get our act together (i.e. how much adaptation we need on top of the mitigation).

At the end of the day beej67, you cannot conclude that we don't know enough to promote mitigation measures. It's possible that higher sensitivity will increase the urgency of those measures but I think we'll be limited by the rate of politics and cultures.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (rb1957)

how to address possible changes in rainfall, distribution and amounts ?
Great question. Hence why it’s much easy to limit the extent of those changes rather than being forced to adapt to them. The US will likely have no issues adapting but Africa is a different story.

Quote (rb1957)

sure a bunch of people will become homeless if the sealevel rises 2' ... but maybe we can relocate them to the newly de-iced Greenland ? that is meant as a joke (and not a serious proposal), although it points to new opportunities that will arise with the new world order.
Are you suggesting that some areas will benefit from climate change? That’s possible, yes, but irrelevant. The benefit in some small areas is vastly outweighed by the costs in the rest of the planet. I don’t understand how this (referring to the last part, not the joke) isn’t another example of ignoring the cost and political, social and ethical issues with displacement.

Quote (rb1957)

If we change our FF burning habits now, and significantly, how long will it take the environment to adjust ?
It’s a rather ill-phrased question. Our total emissions impact the amount of change to the environment. If we reduce our emissions, we reduce the rate of change. However, we cannot reverse the change (in the next thousand years). So reducing our emissions doesn’t cause the environment to “adjust” back to “normal”, it just limits the amount of “adjustment”.

Quote (rb1957)

what are we going to do in the future if we do this now (change our FF burning habit at considerable expense) and yet things don't turn around ?
If you can explain, in equal detail to the science behind anthropogenic climate change by CO2, another process that might be causing the current warming, I’m all ears. “It’s changed before” doesn’t work (in fact it validates anthropogenic CO2). “It’s the sun” doesn’t work (it’s going in the opposite direction for the last few decades). “It’s land use change” doesn’t work (see the above discussions with beej67). Simply put, there’s nothing to suggest that CO2 is not the driver of climate change. If we reduce our emissions and it still warms, we acted on the best data and evidence we had at the time. That’s how you do risk assessment.

Quote (rb1957)

how will we ensure all countries change the same ?
Great question. Tariffs are likely one answer. With regards to allowing third world development, again, great question. To me, there’s a moral responsibility to help them, especially as the first world became the first world largely on the back of fossil fuel (note: but now we have other options). This is not an argument against mitigation though, just to go about it. The first step is significant reductions in developed nations.

Quote (rb1957)

what'd happen if we doubled our fusion research budget ?
Might be a good idea. Maybe you can ask the US chairman of the Committee of Science, Space and Technology.

Quote (rb1957)

why doesn't gasoline cost $10/liter ?
Because revenue neutral taxation on gasoline is likely a better option than allowing oil companies to increase the cost, largely so they can continue to privatize the gains while socializing the damages. You still have the same impact on influencing consumer behavior but now you can redirect the money to low-income families and other such social benefits (as BC does).

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor,
you tipped at something that has been bugging me- I would appreciate input from both sides.

I suspect that the developed nations have already passed the point of diminishing returns. It is costing more and more for less and less benefit. Developing nations, however, are still in their infancy regarding measures that may prove beneficial. I would suspect that China, India, most of Africa, parts of South America... emit much more than the US, Canada, Australia, western Europe, Japan...

Where it may cost billions to initiate some of the proposals in the developed nations, it would cost a fraction of that in the developing nations- and would probably have a greater impact.
What is stopping us from using our technologies (and money)to help those nations achieve better goals? We could spend a fraction of what is proposed and get better results.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (hawkaz)

Where it may cost billions to initiate some of the proposals in the developed nations, it would cost a fraction of that in the developing nations- and would probably have a greater impact.
What is stopping us from using our technologies (and money) to help those nations achieve better goals? We could spend a fraction of what is proposed and get better results.
That’s an interesting point. I’m not sure I necessarily agree with it but I see where you are coming from. The reason I’m not sure I agree is that while total emissions are very high in China and India, emissions per capita (China – 7.4 t/person, India 1.7 t/person) are much smaller than the US (16.6), Canada (15.7) and Australia(16.9) (parts of the EU are lower than China). Therefore, when emissions per capita are so high, there is a lot of low hanging fruit. However, when it comes to supporting low emission energy generation, then you are likely right.

I’m not sure I understand exactly what you are suggesting, though. If you’re suggesting that the US’s money would be better spent (more bang-for-the-buck) in helping the developing world reduce emissions rather than domestically, then I don’t agree. If you mean, in addition to domestic reductions, then I would agree. Total global emission reduction should be our goal.

At this point, I feel it necessary to talk, preemptively, about the argument “if China isn’t going to do something, then it doesn’t matter if we do”. Firstly, China is very much so coming to the table to work on reducing emissions. Secondly, CO2 emission tariffs could be an effective way of “encouraging” countries to participate in emission reductions (especially a country so dependent on exports). Lastly, the entire argument is grounded on fallacious logic. While halting the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is of course best, reducing the rate of increase in concentrations is also beneficial. If the rest of the world was net carbon neutral but China was still going on business-as-usual it would be much better than if the whole world continued business-as-usual.

I hope this addresses your question. Let me know if it doesn’t.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

So, here's a relevant graphic, which basically shows that even if ALL of the non-industrialized countries were to completely eliminate their carbon emissions, the total global emission would only drop by 28%. Note that even India with 4x the population of the US emits less than 1/3rd of the emissions.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Beej67, no one thinks that 2 deg C is “doomsday”. No one is advocating for martial law.

Are you paying attention? How about James Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute?

Quote:

Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.

The climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades.

Earth, with its four-kilometre-deep oceans, responds only slowly to changes of carbon dioxide. So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years

The greatest danger hanging over our children and grandchildren is initiation of changes that will be irreversible on any time scale that humans can imagine. If coastal ice shelves buttressing the west Antarctic ice sheet continue to disintegrate, the sheet could disgorge into the ocean, raising sea levels by several metres in a century. Such rates of sea level change have occurred many times in Earth's history in response to global warming rates no higher than those of the past 30 years. Almost half of the world's great cities are located on coastlines.

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species - its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/...

He goes on to advocate the EU forcing Russia somehow to keep all of its oil in the ground, and such. So how does he expect to manage that, exactly? You got any ideas, rconnor, outside of some sort of global martial law? You ready for World War 3? I'm not.

These are the sort of conclusions that logical people draw from modeling an ECS of 4.5. They are not the sort of conclusions that logical people would draw from modeling an ECS of 1.5. That's why we've got to get the number right.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Oh, hey, here you go. "Doomsday Clock 3 Minutes from Midnight."

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/cli...

So according to that bunch of scientists, the world is closer to a Global Thermonuclear War severity disaster than it has been since 1953, and is significantly closer than it was even during the Cuban Missile Crisis. So no, rconnor. I know you wish this was a strawman, but it is not a strawman. This sort of doomsday talk is exactly what people are crafting policy around.

And the science is not good enough to support doomsday predictions.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@beej67, this is the major objection in my mind. Thanks for these two posts/links.

We have data and we have split opinion of the interpretation of the data regarding 1) what the future looks like, 2) what's actually causing this, 3) can we do anything to substantially positively effect this, 4) should we do anything, 5) how should we do it if we do it.

I am far more fearful of governmental tyranny than I am of nature. Governments are like fire: a dangerous servant and a fearful master!

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

And I don't even like oil, because it comes from the Middle East, and the ME is full of crazy people. We should seek to stop associating in any way with crazy people, and by extension, seek to use less oil.

And I don't even like coal either, because strip mining is a terrible, fantastically damaging practice environmentally, and by extension we should seek to use less coal.

But doomsday pop science leads us to policy conclusions that are not only unrealistic, they're terrifying. And the science does not yet support those conclusions with any legitimate degree of certainty, like Mr. Hansen above seems to think they do.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"the ME is full of crazy people" ... I think craziness is pretty uniformly distributed over the world (except maybe Antarctica) ... ah, even there, in fact maybe higher there ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Strange to say, but we have disused many technologies because they were difficult, less cost effective in the face of cheep energy, or other reasons.

Take the ICE house that was used to store Winter cut ice for use in the Summer. We now use other forms of energy, mostly electricity, to do the same thing.
In no way do I think we can completly go back to ice houses for cooling, but maybe a form of ice storage of energy makes more since.
But is not likely without time of day/year energy pricing, which is prohibited by governments.

So part of the issue of energy reduction can be forced by the free market, if it is allowed to operate in the energy supply to customers (retail).

Until the market is allowed to work, the government is just controlling us with it's mandates.

In many states we are not allowed to dam a creek, or river, so we can't develop more hydroelectric energy. So is coal or oil the real problem?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Beej67,
“No one” was in the context of earlier discussion (“the term “dooms day” is your term, not Vox’s nor the authors’ of the paper [nor the IPCC nor mine]”), I assumed that was obvious. Sensationalize is, of course, on both sides of the table; I condemn both. James Hansen’s “death train/death factories” comment was gag-worthy (he’s a great scientist but I often disagree with his language as an activist). However, while I disagree with his language and his focus on the “worse” end of uncertainty (*cough*…kinda like someone who only focuses on the “better” end of the uncertainty…*cough*), the impacts he discusses are supported by the science.

You, on the other hand, are flat out making things up. To think those sensationalized puff pieces are what’s crafting policy is nonsense. To think that mitigation policy might involve “martial law” is absolute tin-foil hat lunacy. You’re scared silly about some fictitious (and totally untrue) idea of mitigation and you are attempting to scare other people away. All while, hypocritically, calling people like Hansen “alarmist”.

Europe has been quite aggressive thus far in reducing emissions. Did they do so under the enacting of “martial law”? No.

BC has North America’s most comprehensive carbon tax. Did citizens have to forfeit their freedom? No.

Revenue neutral carbon taxes (where funds go towards low-income families and other social benefits), incentivizing energy efficiency (through utility demand side management), stricter energy and emission standards and renewable energy generation targets are all valid methods of reducing our emissions. None of them are close to “martial law”.

(And this isn’t the Fox News comment section, keep your ignorant views of other regions out of this discussion.)

SkipVought,

Quote (SkipVought)

We have data and we have split opinion of the interpretation of the data
No we don’t. Nearly all (say 97%) scientist, universities and scientific institutions share the same opinion. That some libertarian think-tanks or right-wing media outlets disagree is irrelevant. Just because you choose to listen to a very loud but small fringe voice doesn’t mean the scientific community is unsure or “split”.

Again, do you feel that "we have a split opinion of the interpretation of the data" surrounding evolution just because some religious groups disagree with the scientific evidence?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Even if there were consensus on what the data means, then the other questions sill linger.

And, yes, I do strongly doubt the Neo-Darwinian Evolution consensus. I doubt that life came from non-life, that intelligence came from non-intelligence. I see that data and have a different conclusion. Take a look a Thomas Nagle, "Mind and Cosmos."

So consensus doesn't carry the weight for me. Consensus can be manipulated. I can think of several consensus movements that had dire historical consequences.

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

To think those sensationalized puff pieces are what’s crafting policy is nonsense.

I quoted the head of the NASA Goddard Space Center while he was on a trip to Europe specifically to influence policy, and you're recasting my quote as a sensationalized puff piece.

That did just happen.

You know what else just happened? Bernie Sanders, the guy in the lead for the Democratic nomination, claimed that Global Warming causes terrorism.

Yes, rconnor. These puff pieces are clearly influencing policy. It's not a straw man, no matter how much you wish it was.

Quote (rconnor)

Europe has been quite aggressive thus far in reducing emissions. Did they do so under the enacting of “martial law”? No.

By "quite aggressive," do you mean "not even a shred as aggressive as would be necessary to avoid global catastrophe according to many scientists" ..?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

and hasn't Europe, or Germany at least, stepped back from their CC programs ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"You know what else just happened? Bernie Sanders, the guy in the lead for the Democratic nomination, claimed that Global Warming causes terrorism."

So, instead of "puff" pieces use "puff" titles. I'm guessing this is the internet equivalent of Fox News, since the very first sentence of the article, which apparently even the author didn't read, says that Sanders said, "climate change will lead to terrorism" "Will lead to" is a far cry from "causes," namely many decades in the future, as opposed to NOW.

One could certainly mount a much more nuanced and possibly plausible argument about whether the premise is even true, but that wouldn't have succeeded in derailing the basic discussion, nor would it have people quoting the title without reading the article. While drought and famine have historically lead to war with neighbors with plentiful food or water, one might suspect that even neighbors will be so poorly off that there wouldn't be much point in instigating a local war. More plausibly, a country like Venezuela might eye Argentina as an invasion target, but there wouldn't be much point in mounting terrorism campaigns, since that won't lead to any sort of successful invasion of, nor foreign aid from, Argentina. The only terrorism would be a prelude to an actual invasion, to "soften" the opposing side's populace, but even then, it would be more along the lines of "slash and burn" tactics that eventually led to the fall of Rome. Even then, Venezuela would need to march two other countries and fight their respective armies before reaching its goal, and very likely, Brazil might have the same goal. This scenario doesn't get well served by terrorism. Now, Argentina might instigate terrorism in Venezuela to dissuade them from mounting the invasion. But, I don't think that's what Sanders had in mind.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Beej67, the science and economic impacts behind Hansen’s statements is what drives policy. The sensationalize descriptors he sometimes uses are irrelevant packaging. What matters to policy is the economic impact of climate change, not what adjective one puts in front of them. Again, he’s not objectively wrong (what he says are possible outcomes supported by the science), I just feel he’s over-the-top in his choice of descriptors.

Unlike you, who is flat out making stuff up. All of this stems from a news piece that was trying to say 2 deg C is likely not a practical limit (which I agree with) and you twisting it, due to your own ignorance on the subject, to say the government will enact “martial law” to keep below 2 deg C. You keep doubling down on this (in an equally stubborn fashion to your land use change hunches) but you have nothing to support the “martial law” you keep talking about (just like your land use change hunches). Nothing. Look through IPCC RCP scenarios and see what they state is the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. See anything that resembles “martial law”? Read AR5 WG2 and WG3. See anything that resembles “martial law”? Heard any suggestions that enacting “martial law” will be a likely outcome from COP21 (…from a non-crazy source)?

Beyond that, you’re oblivious to the to the irony of attacking Hansen from being “alarmist” (and I will say that he sometimes is!) while lying about mitigation strategies in an attempt to scare people away from pursuing them.

To call an X meter rise in sea level “dooms day” or “lead to economic, political, social and ethical difficulties” is simply a choice of diction (sensationalized versus non-sensationalized). But to say mitigation measures involve “enacting martial law” or “revenue neutral carbon taxes, increased energy efficiency, etc.” is beyond a choice of diction; it’s the difference between fear-mongering falsehoods and reality.

rb1957, I don’t see how that’s relevant to my point (which was mitigation measures do not equate to enacting “martial law”). Furthermore, it’s not like Germany has abandoned all mitigation measures, they’ve simply revised them. While this isn’t a positive step, if anything, it speaks to my concern that political and social inertia will limit the pace of policy, not the actual sensitivity value.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
SkipVought,

Quote (SkipVought)

Even if there were consensus on what the data means, then the other questions sill linger.
  • Question 1 is clearly between negative and very negative without mitigation and the cost/benefit ranges from positive to very positive with mitigation.
  • Question 2 is about as settled as sciences gets. It’s us.
  • Question 3 is answered in question 1.
  • Question 4 is a value judgment question. If we agree reducing hardships across the globe and increasing cost/benefit is something we want, then the answer is “yes”.
  • Question 5 is the important one. There’s a lot of discussion that is required. Just “martial law” is not on anyone’s table (other than the fictitious table in beej67’s mind).

Quote (SkipVought)

I can think of several consensus movements that had dire historical consequences.
Those answers aren’t derive from a consensus itself, they’re derived from the body scientific evidence (for questions 1-3; 4 and 5 are value judgment questions).

And I’ll repeat this quote (my bold):

Quote (Robert L. Park)

It is not enough to wear the mantel of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.

Quote (SkipVought)

And, yes, I do strongly doubt the Neo-Darwinian Evolution consensus. I doubt that life came from non-life, that intelligence came from non-intelligence. I see that data and have a different conclusion. Take a look a Thomas Nagle, "Mind and Cosmos."
Incidentally you’ve touched on another interest of mine. I know it’s rather off-topic (and I hope we don’t drag others into it) but you’ve sparked my curiosity (and, heck, it’s my thread!). It appears we not only come from different schools of thought on climate science but also on consciousness/evolution (but it’s likely the latter disagreement would result in much more enjoyable exchange).

I disagree with Nagel and cannot see how his view on the mind is not repackaged dualism. I see much of his philosophy as “neuroscience cannot account for this [ex. qualia] at this point in time, therefore consciousness must not be fully explainable in a physical sense”. It seems to require the immaterial effecting the material, in some capacity, to make sense of his ideas, which violates nearly every law of science. Or, at the very least, he gives the mind special privileges over the laws of science. See this section of a talk from physicist Sean Carroll that perfectly illustrates the inescapable incompatibility of dualism with modern science.

Nagel's views on evolution are, to me, indistinguishable from intelligent design (just without a god being at the head). Again, his argument appears to be "science has not developed a mechanism for the transition from non-life to life at this point in time, therefore life must be some special [read: magical] property." To me, they stem from anthropocentrism, which is a common trap. I enjoy reading Nagel, he’s got some interesting ideas but I don’t think they can be salvaged from those pitfalls.

As may not be surprising, I am a materialist through and through (I’m in the Daniel Dennett camp, just finishing up a re-read of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea actually). I digress and will leave that there but I’d welcome any follow up comments you’d like to make though.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

To call an X meter rise in sea level “dooms day” or “lead to economic, political, social and ethical difficulties” is simply a choice of diction (sensationalized versus non-sensationalized). But to say mitigation measures involve “enacting martial law” or “revenue neutral carbon taxes, increased energy efficiency, etc.” is beyond a choice of diction; it’s the difference between fear-mongering falsehoods and reality.

It's not merely a choice of diction because "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency" will not avert enough global warming to matter. There is a disconnect between policy and efficacy according to the science, even if the science was settled, which it isn't.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

There is a disconnect between policy and efficacy according to the science
Much of what you’re saying here seems to be suggesting that mitigation policies, to date, have not been as aggressive as what the science says they should be. I would agree. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that disagreed.

However, to then go and think that what the science says it should be is “martial law”, is just you flat out making stuff up. I gave you a suggestion that will help you understand what the science says we should be looking at. While the IPCC very specifically does not promote any kind of policy, it has set up various possible future emission scenarios based off various levels of mitigation measures. Look at the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 and you will begin to educate yourself on some of the measures that are being discussed.

There have been a few (more accurately, too few) positive steps in mitigation efforts but nothing close to what we should be doing. The science has been sending a consistent message to policy makers for decades now (50 years since the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology cautioned President Lyndon B. Johnson and over a century since Arrhenius 1896) (and no, Global Cooling was not the scientific message in the 70’s) but we’ve had very little action. The more evidence that comes in, the more difficult it is for people to have a rational, scientifically-defensible argument against supporting for mitigation measures. But that won’t stop them from spewing an ideologically driven argument (that, more and more, can be distilled done to “I don’t believe that science because taxes/government”, see cranky108’s post at 2 Nov 15 20:22 as a perfect and succinct example).

To that point, when I wrote my opening posts, I only had temperature data up to August 2015. NASA just released October 2015 data. Lamar Smith might be needing to subpoena NASA as well, which had a higher Oct 2015 anomaly than NOAA. He should also be looking into the Obama Administration's corrupting influence on the Japan Meteorological Agency. Just how far does this conspiracy of NOAA's publically available data and methods go!

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

to be fair (?) the NOAA haven't released their data (I hope they collect more than one data point !) they've released their distilled "manipulated" "data"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
What? Not true. It is all there. Input data, methods and final results.

That Smith cannot understand it is neither surprising nor NOAA's fault.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

from the wiki article on Arrhenius you can see the antagonism started at the beginning ... Angstrom "criticised" his conclusions, and "Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether."

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Much of what you’re saying here seems to be suggesting that mitigation policies, to date, have not been as aggressive as what the science says they should be. I would agree. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that disagreed.

However, to then go and think that what the science says it should be is “martial law”, is just you flat out making stuff up.

You claiming "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency" would arrest global warming is making stuff up. And every time I try to get you to outlay what policies you'd like to suggest to arrest global warming, you move the goalposts to "well, we have to do whatever we can," which is a BS response, because you're removing the goalposts entirely! Policy is about ROI. About weighing options on your investment and identifying the real, measurable return of each of the options weighed. Identify the problem, identify a way to measure the problem, and spend your money in such a way that it most measurably affects that problem.

And "global warming" is not the problem. Mass extinction might be the problem. Damage to coastal areas might be the problem. Drought might be the problem, although I'd contend that a warmer planet also has more rain. You have to identify the 'bad stuff' and do something to break one of the links in the chain to the bad stuff.

I think the problem is mass extinction. I've demonstrated clearly, with math, that the amount of money thrown at Obama's most recent power plant initiative could permanently reserve a rain forest area the size of Honduras. I've further demonstrated that that same power plant initiative would do nothing to arrest global warming. So this is a problem for you, whether you like it or not. It's a clear demonstration that the juice is not worth the squeeze.

In the past 125 years, the globe has warmed 0.8 degrees, which is a difference of about 150 miles south as the crow flies. Yeah that's terrible and all, but it's effectively meaningless to the mass extinction problem, and it's not causing terrorism either. And if the globe warms another 0.8 degrees over the next 125 years, it's not going to cause any more terrorism and it's not going to cause any more extinction. But the amount of money and effort you'd have to spend to fully avert that 0.8 degrees is simply ridiculous.

But back to your proposed policy. How much warming do you think you're going to avert with "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency"? Show me the math on that. And then show me the math on the relative sea level difference between that case, and a baseline case of "business as usual." The difference will be jack squat. Couple of inches per century. Not worth the squeeze. Let's spend that giant pile of cash preserving habitat and building leveys.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

You claiming "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency" would arrest global warming is making stuff up.
Please remind me where I said revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency alone would arrest (all?) global warming. Or are you, once again, twisting other peoples words?

There’s a vast difference between listing a series of mitigation measures (ending with “etc.”) as examples of actual proposed mitigation measures (in contrast to scare tactic examples that are blatantly untrue), which I did, and saying “revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency would arrest [all?] global warming”, which was your made up misrepresentation. Please try to engage in this discussion honestly.

Quote (beej67)

And every time I try to get you to outlay what policies you'd like to suggest to arrest global warming, you move the goalposts to "well, we have to do whatever we can," which is a BS response, because you're removing the goalposts entirely! Policy is about ROI. About weighing options on your investment and identifying the real, measurable return of each of the options weighed. Identify the problem, identify a way to measure the problem, and spend your money in such a way that it most measurably affects that problem.
No, I believe my response was suggesting you read the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6, WGII and WGIII to develop an understanding behind the methods and ROI of mitigation strategies. Again, please try to engage in this discussion honestly.

WGIII is likely the best source for information. Or this or this. Given your track record of reading and understanding IPCC reports, I’m not confident it will be helpful to you though.

Quote (beej67)

And "global warming" is not the problem. Mass extinction might be the problem. Damage to coastal areas might be the problem. Drought might be the problem
And? What causes those issues? Global warming (read WGII). (note: as we’ve said to you about a half dozen times now (and I really hope has finally set in), reductions in deforestation are an integral part of mitigation. So the extinction caused by loss of habitat will also be reduced by combating climate change).

Quote (beej67)

although I'd contend that a warmer planet also has more rain.
Another hunch? Read the science. In a nutshell, dryer areas get dryer, wet areas get wetter.

Quote (beej67)

I think the problem is mass extinction.
Ok. The worst mass extinction events in the Earth’s history have been a result of geologically rapid climate change. So the pace of anthropogenic climate change should really have you worried about mass extinction.

Quote (beej67)

I've further demonstrated that that same power plant initiative would do nothing to arrest global warming.
I sure hope you’re not referring to that CATO blog post again. Firstly, The Clean Power Act was never designed to “arrest global warming”. Again, please try to engage in this discussion honestly. Secondly, the CATO blog post was incredibly flawed. As I stated to you before in a past thread:

Quote (rconnor)

Thirdly, you've inexplicable failed to notice that EPA's Clean Power Plan has estimates up to 2030 and, instead, argued about 2100. Again, have you read the reports? The Plan estimates ~550 MtCO2 savings in 2030. This represents 19% of the difference between RCP85 and RCP45 in 2030. This is not cooking the books, this is you failing to read. Again to argue that this will also mean 550 MtCO2 in 2100 is wrong because the baseline would continue to increase, hence the Clean Power Plan would have much higher savings in 2100.
So basically the CATO analysis shows that the difference between the “base line” and the “base line” minus 550 MtCO2 is minor in 2100. That is likely true. However, they spun it to trick people to think that this represents the difference between the “base line” and the “base line” plus the Clean Power Act. That is absolutely not what their analysis is doing. That is why you don’t go to some ideologically driven, Koch Brothers founded (the "o" in "founded" is not a typo) libertarian think-tank for quality scientific analysis.

Quote (beej67)

In the past 125 years, the globe has warmed 0.8 degrees, which is a difference of about 150 miles south as the crow flies.
This is one of the silliest arguments I hear. It follows the same logical fallacy as “diurnal temperature differences can be 20 deg C” or “the difference between winter lows (-40 deg C) and summer highs (+40 deg C) can be 80 deg C (using numbers from my location), therefore a 2 deg C change in global temperatures is meaningless”. Both your statement and those statements completely ignore the fact that the planet is sensitivity to changes in global temperature averages.

The difference between the last glaciations period and the current interglacial period was ~5 deg C. Past changes of around 5 deg C was the difference in 25 meters in sea level rise in the past (now, we don’t have that much ice to melt, so sea level rise will not be above 12 m, likely). Past change of around 5 deg C involves a mass change in the biosphere and involves mass extinctions. And the last 5 deg C rise occurred over a period of ~15,000 years. That’s 0.03 deg C per century. We are hoping to stay below 2 deg C before the end of the century (current rate is about 1.7 deg C per century). Remember when I told ornerynorsk that “it’s changed before” is a really, really bad argument against mitigation. Ya, that’s another reason why.

Quote (beej67)

How much warming do you think you're going to avert with "revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency"? Show me the math on that. And then show me the math on the relative sea level difference between that case, and a baseline case of "business as usual."
Not all of it, that’s for sure. That’s because those aren’t the only two measures we need. I’ve tried to, unsuccessfully, refer you to WGIII about 4 times now. Examples of possible measures and the their economic impacts are discussed.

I think the most important point comes from paleoclimatology. The difference between ice ages and interglacial periods is around the same as our “business as usual” case. The cause of those changes were changes in atmospheric CO2 levels, just like today. The difference is those past changes occurred over tens of thousands of years (and still had dramatic impacts on the biosphere). We are talking about those same changes occurring over centuries. You’re fooling yourself if you think this isn’t a problem. You’re fooling yourself if you think that mitigation is a waste of money.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
rb1957, you may want to read this for more (updated) context on the Lamar Smith nonsense.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
For even more context, see the newest “”pause” buster” study. Note it uses GISS data. That makes six papers demonstrating the lack of a “pause” - 1 (uses GISS), 2 (the evil Karl et al…that also compares against GISS, HadCRUT and Cowtan and Way), 3 (uses GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT, and Cowtan and Way), 4 (uses GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT), 5 (uses GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT and Cowtan and Way), and now 6 (uses GISS).

Note that none of these papers solely rely on NOAA data (not even Karl et al 2015!) and they all show the same thing (using different data sets) – there is no statistical evidence that the “pause” existed in the first place. Yet Smith STILL believes that NOAA somehow tampered with the data for political reasons,
  • despite never providing any evidence of what the tampering might be (he doesn’t have the foggiest idea about the science),
  • despite the fact that the time line shows his accusation of rushing the paper to publication to align with political action is completely false,
  • despite the fact that the input data, methods and results are freely available online (and always were),
  • despite the fact that NOAA sent scientists to meet with Smith and discuss the methods (he needs all the help he can get),
  • despite the fact that NOAA’s data set is consistent with other major data sets,
  • despite the fact that Karl et al’s conclusions are consistent with numerous other peer-reviewed studies, that use different data sets and
  • despite the fact that 2015 temperatures, even using v.3 data, completely eliminate any remaining chance that the "pause" might still exist.
I cannot belief Lamar Smith is so dumb as to not understand that his allegations have no merit (and that’s saying something!). It’s very likely he is well aware that his baseless investigation is nothing more than a political-motivated witch hunt but he nevertheless feels it is his job to go on political-motivated witch hunts (while using tax payer dollars and seriously damaging the relationship between the scientific community and congress). Frankly, I’d be more sympathetic to Smith if he just came out and stated that there is no factual basis, just pure political motivation, behind the investigation like the Republicans (essentially) did with the Benghazi panel.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

then I guess (hope?) that answers your original question for this thread ... if no pause then no need to talk about it ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
I would hope that would be the case as well. Does that mean Lamar Smith will make a public statement apologizing for his borderline libelous statements to NOAA scientists? Does this mean posters here will stop using the “pause” as an argument against mitigation measures? I’m rather doubtful.

I think this speaks to a much larger point in this discussion. Numerous posters were more than happy to use the “pause” as an argument in previous posts. However, once counter-evidence is brought forth against that viewpoint, they all the sudden become quiet or attempt to shut down the conversation as “pointless”. People are more than happy to shout out opinions but no so willing to defend them.

This might not be such a big deal if it weren’t for the real-world implications of such uninformed opinions. Ignorance and indifference towards mitigation policies is a harmless combination but ignorance and fervent attacks against mitigation measure is a very harmful combination. And yes, the combination of ignorance and fervent support of mitigation measures can be dangerous as well (I recently put off a group of my friends, who could be classed as quite hard line environmentalists, because I questioned their position of holding such strong opinions despite having little knowledge on the science behind the issue). We need informed opinions on the matter, not ideologically-driven opinions.

Now, I don’t expect that people will become informed by reading my posts; I think they need to search that information out on their own. I’m merely trying to point them in that direction. But to think that you’ll get better, more objective, information from places like WUWT, CATO, Breitbart, etc. than NASA, PNAS, Nature is simply wrong. At the end of the day, this has been the running theme of my posts.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2

Quote (rconnor)

Please remind me where I said revenue neutral carbon taxes and increases in energy efficiency alone would arrest (all?) global warming.

Please remind me where you have advocated any policy that would significantly reduce global warming. The efficacy of policy is the whole point, sir. Your first link in your most recent post advocates establishing an elaborate global carbon trading scheme that Goldman Sachs can pump-and-dump like they did the mortgaged backed securities market, or any other derivative investment they like. Goldman stockholders sure would love that, but it's not going to fix anything. Your second link is to a "but guys! build more solar panels!" report, which we all know won't work. If you want to shift the grid off carbon you have to go nuclear in a massive way. (which I don't mind, btw)

Quote (rconnor)

And? What causes those issues? Global warming

Holy crap, mass extinction is NOT CAUSED BY A HALF DEGREE A CENTURY TEMPERATURE RISE! It's caused by 50% of the world's habitat disappearing, by overharvesting of the world's oceans, by toxic pollution (not CO2), and by increases in the vectors for invasive species and pathogens. In short, it's caused by human population expansion, not by an increase in mean surface temperature barely noticeable by generation. It correlates with GW because GW also correlates with human population expansion.

Quote (rconnor)

Another hunch? Read the science. In a nutshell, dryer areas get dryer, wet areas get wetter.

A warmer planet has more total rain, period. If some areas get dryer because of local weather pattern changes, then that's a local issue. Cloud formation is caused by the pseudoadiabatic lifting of moist air parcels, and a warmer planet has A) more moist air, and B) more convection. Sorry, science on that is clear. A frozen planet would have the least possible precipitation, a tropical planet would have the most.

Quote (rconnor)

Ok. The worst mass extinction events in the Earth’s history have been a result of geologically rapid climate change.

Cooling. They were a result of geologically rapid cooling. Not warming. Cooling. All of them but this one.

But we don't even know that for a fact either! All we know is that there is a correlation between mass extinction and ice ages. We don't know for sure whether the extinction was caused by the ice ages, or the ice ages were caused by (land cover changes associated with) the extinction, or a third thing (comet bombardment?) caused them both. You climate people have a real problem with causation.

The only one we know for sure about is this one. The one that we're already in. The one that has been caused, we know for a fact, by mankind's disregard for the principles of natural conservation. Not by half a degree warming.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

Please remind me where you have advocated any policy that would significantly reduce global warming.
When talking with people that understand the science, discussing the different mitigation policies is an interesting and important topic (to me, it’s where the conversation should be at this point). However, when talking with people that either misunderstand or are uninformed about the science, then discussing mitigation policies is a waste of time – the science has to come first. My area of focus here has always been on the science behind climate change, to those that don’t have a great understanding of it, in an attempt to demonstrate that mitigation measures are required. Talking about mitigation policies with someone how thinks land use change is primarily responsible for climate change and climate change won’t be bad is simply pointless.

Now, I understand why many of you are so interested in discussing policy prior to understanding the science. You’ve looked at the proposed mitigation policies (or in your case beej67, completely made up what they might be), don’t like them for ideological reasons and have then decided the science must be wrong. So bashing mitigation policies for ideological reasons, which are completely inconsistent with the science, is enjoyable to some. However, for me to engage in a conversation on mitigation policies with those people is a little bit like playing chess with a pigeon…

But against my better judgment, I will describe my views in a nut shell. I feel mitigation measures need to look at moving energy generation is as close to fully renewable as practically possible and I feel that nuclear shouldn’t be completely disregarded as a part of this. Aforestation, or at least significant reductions in deforestation, will also be extremely important. I’m unconvinced that artificially drawing down atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a practical option (hence why I feel it’s important to reduce emissions as soon as possible). Revenue neutral carbon taxes appear to be an effective method in reducing emission growth in the short term, but of course is not the panacea, and could support the shift in energy generation. Tariffs on imports from non-participating countries would help encourage participation. Allowances from underdeveloped nations need to be taken into account, which is an important political, economic and ethical discussion. Then upgrading the grid to support a transition to mainly electric transportation is the next step. Going to electric transportation while we still generate from coal is pointless; in fact, a study I read showed that on average in the US hybrid vehicles have fewer emissions/km than fully electric vehicles. The opposite is true in areas that generate primarily from non-coal sources.

The exact how and when is an ongoing discussion but to say it’s impossible is just plain wrong. Frankly, to say it’s impossible is contradictory for “skeptics” that say we can adapt are way out of anything. If you believe human ingenuity will allow us to solve all problems with adaptation, then we can certainly solve the problems of mitigation. I actually agree with both (to an extent), the difference is in the cost – both financial and ethical. Here the science says again and again that mitigation will be much more cost effective (in both terms) than adaptation. However, when one side continually ignores the cost of adaptation, hyperbolizes the cost of mitigation, and misunderstands and over plays the “better” end of uncertainty while ignoring the “worse” end then such conversations are pointless. Hence my original point about chess with a pigeon.

Quote (beej67)

Holy crap, mass extinction is NOT CAUSED BY A HALF DEGREE A CENTURY TEMPERATURE RISE! It's caused by 50% of the world's habitat disappearing, by overharvesting of the world's oceans, by toxic pollution (not CO2), and by increases in the vectors for invasive species and pathogens.
Firstly, we’ve just recently eclipsed the 1 deg C mark over pre-industrial temperatures, so your caps lock “HALF DEGREE” is outdated. Secondly, our current long term rate of warming is 1.7 deg C per century, so your caps lock “HALF DEGREE A CENTURY” is wrong.

Returning to your original point, if you are talking about extinctions up to this point, then I agree with you. Up to this point, impacts on ecosystems caused by global warming has been smaller than the impact of anthropogenic land use changes. I thought we were talking about extinctions into the future, in which case global warming will likely be more impactful than land-use change. Furthermore, up to this point we haven't had what could be classed as a "mass extinction event" comparable to past events. Into the future, it's very likely we will. However, as I’ve repeatedly said to you, I completely agree with you that land-use changes and pollution are extremely important environmental concerns. What you seem to fail to understand is that solutions to those problems are intrinsic to combating climate change.

Interestingly, your comment on “increases in the vectors for invasive species and pathogens” is another reason why global warming will be very bad. Pathogens love warmth and will benefit from global warming, much to our loss. Furthermore, as species are forced to migrate due to changes in the biosphere, you will have massive shifts in the ecological equilibrium as the biosphere struggles to handle the shifts.

Quote (beej67)

A warmer planet has more total rain, period.
This is overly simplistic. As I said, read the science. Here are two examples.

Quote (beej67)

Cooling. [Past mass extinctions] were a result of geologically rapid cooling. Not warming. Cooling.
This is just so utterly incorrect. Some past mass extinction events were caused by cooling but others, including many of the biggest ones, where caused by warming.

The Permian event (96% loss of species) was caused by increased volcanism (elevated H2S and CO2 levels) which lead to global warming, not cooling. The Triassic event (80% loss of species) was caused by activity in the Central Atlantic Magmatic which increased CO2 levels which lead to global warming, not cooling (and calcification in the world oceans). More importantly, both global cooling and global warming extinctions are intrinsically tied to CO2 concentrations. Mass extinction caused by warming – CO2 levels were rising. Mass extinction caused by cooling – CO2 levels were failing. (source, 2, 3)

***KEY POINT***Oh and by the way, the Permian event, the one that killed off 96% of all species on the planet, involved an 8 deg C rise in temperatures and CO2 concentrations to rise to 2000 ppm, which occurred over a period of 60,000 years (source). To put this in perspective, RCP8.5 (which is close to the “do nothing” option) projects a temperature rise of 4.31 deg C above pre-industrial (1850-1900 average) or 3.7 deg C above the 1986-2005 average by 2100 and projects CO2 concentrations will reach 2000 ppm by 2250 (source). Now, I’m not saying that every and all of the 96% of lost species during the Permian event were caused by global warming alone, as numerous other factors likely played into some of the extinctions. But the repeated relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature and changes in temperature and extinctions demonstrates that rapid changes in climate result in extinctions (1, 2). I'm also not saying the “Anthropocean event” will result in the loss of 96% of all species but it will cause a significant disruption to the biosphere that will result in some level of mass extinction. To say “mass extinction is NOT CAUSED BY A HALF DEGREE A CENTURY TEMPERATURE RISE” is simply contrary to the evidence (especially when we are warming much faster than “HALF A DEGREE A CENTURY”).

This returns us to one of the central points of my last post to beej67, which he tellingly did not comment on. Beyond the fact that past mass extinctions are tied to temperatures and CO2 concentrations (both cooling/lowering and warming/rising), the rate of temperature change during past mass extinction events is orders of magnitude slower than current changes. To claim that “it won’t be bad” (it meaning warming rates >1.5 deg C/century) is completely contradicted by the fact that past periods of geological rapid warming (of <0.05 deg C per century) have lead to massively negative consequences in the biosphere. While “It won’t be bad” and “it’s changed before” are both common “skeptic” arguments against mitigation, the former is completely negated by the latter and the latter negates the argument it was trying to support.***KEY POINT***

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Come on people! Isn't this supposed to be a forum for reasoned debate? It's not for shouting and name calling, right?

Dial down the drama if you want anyone to really consider what you're writing. If someone isn't convinced by a good explanation and evidence, you're not likely to make any more progress by attacking his/her position.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

heck, that ship hit an iceberg !

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
But I thought Al Gore said all those melted?

Seriously though, someguy79, I agree I could have avoided some statements that were made more out of frustration which did little to further my argument. I have edited them out. Thanks for the reminder.

But to think that the reason why we aren’t having a “reasoned discussion” is because of “shouting and name calling” misses the, in my mind, real reason. The, in my mind, real reason we aren’t having a “reasoned discussion" is because one side, and only one side, feels that scientific evidence, especially from well established institutions or peer-reviewed journals, is necessary to support their statements. The other side feels that is optional or, worse yet, that scientific evidence, especially from well established institutions or peer-reviewed journals, is less credible than opinions or blog science. If you feel this an unfair representation, I’d encourage you to review the discussion again.

(If people are actually interested in the meta-discussion, Climateball ™ has you covered)

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor, the first two paragraphs of your reply were a completely disgraceful misrepresentation of everything I've said, and I don't care to bother with it line by line. All I'll say about it is that it's the sort of rhetoric that drives people away from your cause once they see through the forest of strawmen.

Let's instead focus on efficacy, because that's really what this is all about. Here's your "plan" ...

Quote (rconnor)

I feel mitigation measures need to look at moving energy generation is as close to fully renewable as practically possible and I feel that nuclear shouldn’t be completely disregarded as a part of this. Aforestation, or at least significant reductions in deforestation, will also be extremely important. I’m unconvinced that artificially drawing down atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a practical option (hence why I feel it’s important to reduce emissions as soon as possible). Revenue neutral carbon taxes appear to be an effective method in reducing emission growth in the short term, but of course is not the panacea, and could support the shift in energy generation. Tariffs on imports from non-participating countries would help encourage participation. Allowances from underdeveloped nations need to be taken into account, which is an important political, economic and ethical discussion. Then upgrading the grid to support a transition to mainly electric transportation is the next step. Going to electric transportation while we still generate from coal is pointless; in fact, a study I read showed that on average in the US hybrid vehicles have fewer emissions/km than fully electric vehicles. The opposite is true in areas that generate primarily from non-coal sources.

As nebulous and unspecific as it is, I like quite a bit about this plan, because I don't like having my country's economy tied to the whims of global politics. And kid yourself not, global politics are entirely about oil. Turkey's shooting down Russian jets because of a pipeline. I'll summarize my disagreements in short order. "Renewable" doesn't work for base load, you have to go nuclear, or do something else new and weird, like the gulf stream turbine. Conservation is what will actually help the mass extinction problem (see below). Agree with you on the lack of efficacy of artificial CO2 sinks. Carbon taxation and tariffs are both shams, politically, that are developed by, and for, cronyists. I don't like coal because strip mines are evil, and I'd rather tackle the coal problem from the conservation side.

But the important take away here, is that the stuff you're talking about, to the "reasonable" scale that you claim to want to take it, won't significantly affect global warming. You do realize that right? It won't fix the problem, according to the models you hold so dear.

Quote (rconnor)

Returning to your original point, if you are talking about extinctions up to this point, then I agree with you. Up to this point, impacts on ecosystems caused by global warming has been smaller than the impact of anthropogenic land use changes. I thought we were talking about extinctions into the future, in which case global warming will likely be more impactful than land-use change.

What?

When you freely admit that nearly 100% of the current mass extinction is due to anthropogenic pressures unrelated to climate, why on our poor distressed Earth would you think that all, or even most, of the future extinctions are going to be due to a degree per century rise in temperature? You'd spend trillions trying to slow the warming trend a little while everything continues to die of other causes. And this is what I mean when I continue to focus on efficacy of policy. The costs to completely avoid 1 degree rise are tremendous. For the same cost we could turn a third of the planet into preserved habitat.

Quote (rconnor)

Interestingly, your comment on “increases in the vectors for invasive species and pathogens” is another reason why global warming will be very bad. Pathogens love warmth and will benefit from global warming, much to our loss. Furthermore, as species are forced to migrate due to changes in the biosphere, you will have massive shifts in the ecological equilibrium as the biosphere struggles to handle the shifts.

Please list the pathogens that die at 71 C and promulgate at 72 C. You can't. There are none. Climate change does not significantly impact pathogen vectors. You know what does impact pathogen vectors? Airplanes and boats.

Thanks for the tip on the Permian Event. That's going to be some good reading. A quick dip into Wikipedia says that 80% of marine species kicked the bucket, and the bulk of those were due to oceanic acidification. I have mentioned several times that oceanic acidification is the actual threat of CO2, and what we actually need to be freaked out about. Not warming. And that's a good point to pound on here, because climate change didn't kill the Permian diatoms. Causality. What killed the Permian diatoms was lack of dissolved calcium to build their "bones" (shells) with. It was a collapse of oceanic chemistry. The Permian Event also had CO2 concentrations 5 times what we have today. We'd have to increase CO2 at current rates for 950 years to get there.

I've got no idea how RCP8.5 claims we'll get to 2000 ppm by the year 2250, when we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway. Maybe you can enlighten me on that?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"I've got no idea how RCP8.5 claims we'll get to 2000 ppm by the year 2250, when we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway. Maybe you can enlighten me on that?" ... one word answer ... coal.
oh, and "tar sands"

also, I doubt we'll run out of fossil fuels to burn any time soon, we may run low of the cheapest to get at ones, but there are others out there (not economical to exploit now).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rb)

"I've got no idea how RCP8.5 claims we'll get to 2000 ppm by the year 2250, when we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway. Maybe you can enlighten me on that?" ... one word answer ... coal.
oh, and "tar sands"

?



https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/ener...

Coal production has already peaked due to scarcity and difficulty to extract:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Peak-C...

If we're going to run out of oil in 60 years, and coal production is doomed to continue to decline due to scarcity, then how on earth are we supposed to release 950 years worth of carbon in the next 250 as RCP8.5 claims? Where is the carbon even going to come from? We could burn every bit of carbon economically available to us and the CO2 ppm wouldn't get near Permian levels. Not even close.

The question I have, because I do think oceanic acidification is an actual environmental crisis worth discussion, is how much more acidifcation we can stand before the diatom population in our ocean starts to collapse. It might be well shy of that 2000 ppm atmospheric concentration amount. And if so, the bar is well lower for a true crisis. But if that's the case, then we need to focus on that as the problem, and develop science around solving that problem.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Any future looking projection of production, consumption, or remaining recoverable hydrocarbons will be wrong. Mostly they will be very wrong, some will just barely be wrong, the farther out they are projecting, the more wrong they will be.

Coal is anything but scarce or difficult to extract. There is incredible pressure on users of coal to top consuming it. When people slow down their use of coal, production necessarily falls. That downtrend is a result of enviro-wacko pressure, not difficulty of extraction. Your links are utter nonsense that latched onto a forward-looking scenario as fact. It is just a scenario. Someone should be able to tell you with confidence if it was true sometime around the year 2300.

I've done enough of those particular forward looking computer models and reviewed hundreds more to know with absolute certainty that they will be wrong. In fact, I don't believe that the world ever runs out of hydrocarbons--there are too many contemporary organisms that convert CO2 and water into CH4 and O2 to ever run out. The stuff we call "fossil fuels" will run out in the sense that it will reach a point where recovering it costs more than you can sell it for (nearly there today actually with the U.S. spending $52/bbl to produce oil to sell at $40/bbl, but this blip will pass, the next one may not). When it does run out we will get smarter at harvesting contemporary methane. Projections of Peak Oil and "The end of Fossil Fuels" are just fun with numbers and have no intrinsic validity. They don't prove anything except that multi-colored graphs are pretty.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
beej67, perhaps I lumped you in with "skeptics" in general when it wasn't appropriate, my apologies. However, I believe my point still stands - debating mitigation policies with those that don't agree with the science is pointless, as they can always simply say "well it's not needed in the first place".

I am glad you agree with some aspects; we see eye to eye at times (i.e. the importance of conservation). Of course it's rather vague, are you expecting I outline a detailed climate change mitigation treatise? If I could, I should be in Paris right now, not on this forum.

Quote (beej67)

But the important take away here, is that the stuff you're talking about, to the "reasonable" scale that you claim to want to take it, won't significantly affect global warming. You do realize that right? It won't fix the problem, according to the models you hold so dear.
Again, if this is based on some CATO blog post then consider me unconvinced. As I discussed, there analysis incorrectly assumes a 550 MtCO2 difference in 2100 - of course that's going to be small but it's also a completely inappropriate comparison. Again, look at the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 they demonstrate two different emission pathways with drastically different temperatures. Now, I don't consider RCP2.6 to be viable, I think a realistic goal would be to follow something closer to RCP4.5.

Quote (beej67)

When you freely admit that nearly 100% of the current mass extinction is due to anthropogenic pressures unrelated to climate
Speaking of misrepresenting...compare this to what I said. "Smaller than" does not mean "100%" "unrelated to climate". Nevertheless, to answer your follow up question, it's because I think that we haven't yet entered into an era that could be classed as "mass extinction". We've done a lot of damage (and I completely agree we should make efforts to reduce the loss of habitat) but the real damage is yet to come. Fortunately, the solution to both climate change and land use change is very similar - reduced and more efficient consumption. Current Deforestation, fishing and agricultural practices are disruptive and changes in those practices are part and parcel in climate change mitigation.

Quote (beej67)

And this is what I mean when I continue to focus on efficacy of policy. The costs to completely avoid 1 degree rise are tremendous. For the same cost we could turn a third of the planet into preserved habitat
We cannot discuss this rationally if you continue to ignore the cost of adaptation, hyperbolize the cost of mitigation, and misunderstand and overstate the “better” end of uncertainty while ignoring the “worse” end. We cannot discuss this rationally if you premise your argument in some ridiculous CATO blog post.

Quote (beej67)

Climate change does not significantly impact pathogen vectors.
Honestly beej67, please just google these things before you speak - Bebber et al 2013, Gregory et al 2009, Harvell et al 2002, etc.

Quote (beej67)

A quick dip into Wikipedia says that 80% of marine species kicked the bucket, and the bulk of those were due to oceanic acidification. I have mentioned several times that oceanic acidification is the actual threat of CO2, and what we actually need to be freaked out about. Not warming.
Firstly, as someone that doesn't think CO2 is an issue, it's odd that you'd use the fact that CO2-driven ocean acidification is responsible for large amounts of extinctions as an argument supporting your viewpoint. Does that mean you agree with mitigation measures to reduce CO2 emissions now? Secondly, warming is responsible for extinctions - through changes in the biosphere, flooding caused by ice melting, changes in local water supplies and vegetation, anoxia, etc. It's a selective misreading to think otherwise and would put you at odds with the authors of the paper's you are selectively misreading. Here's one example from Joachimski et al 2012:

Quote (Joachimski et al 2012)

The major temperature rise started immediately before the main extinction phase, with maximum and harmful temperatures documented in the latest Permian (Meishan: bed 27). The coincidence of climate warming and the main pulse of extinction suggest that global warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very warm climate conditions in the Early Triassic may have played a major role in the delayed recovery in the aftermath of the Permian-Triassic crisis.

Quote (beej67)

I've got no idea how RCP8.5 claims we'll get to 2000 ppm by the year 2250, when we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway. Maybe you can enlighten me on that?
Ummm, how about you enlighten me on where that "we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway" line comes from. "Ecotricity - Britian's leading green energy supplier"? Colour me unconvinced - I'm in agreement with rb1957 here.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (zdas)

I've done enough of those particular forward looking computer models and reviewed hundreds more to know with absolute certainty that they will be wrong. In fact, I don't believe that the world ever runs out of hydrocarbons--there are too many contemporary organisms that convert CO2 and water into CH4 and O2 to ever run out. The stuff we call "fossil fuels" will run out in the sense that it will reach a point where recovering it costs more than you can sell it for (nearly there today actually with the U.S. spending $52/bbl to produce oil to sell at $40/bbl, but this blip will pass, the next one may not). When it does run out we will get smarter at harvesting contemporary methane.(etc)

Yes, but if you believe the hype that it's all about carbon neutrality, the only thing that matters is reintroduction of entombed carbon to the atmosphere. Harvesting hydrocarbons from "contemporary sources" is by definition carbon neutral. Methane from a turd came from decomposition of organic material, and the carbon in that organic material came from the atmosphere to begin with. We could develop an entire energy system around turd methane and burning trees (which we then replant) and have zero impact on atmospheric carbon ppm.

If, that is, you believe that atmospheric ppm is the only climate driver.

So what really matters if you're a carbon boogyman guy, isn't when we stop burning hydrocarbons. What matters is when we stop extracting them from the earth's crust and reintroducing them to the troposphere. If we're going to run out of them in 100 years, how do we burn 950 years worth of them in 250 years?

Quote (rconnor)

beej67, perhaps I lumped you in with "skeptics" in general when it wasn't appropriate, my apologies. However, I believe my point still stands - debating mitigation policies with those that don't agree with the science is pointless, as they can always simply say "well it's not needed in the first place".

I am glad you agree with some aspects; we see eye to eye at times (i.e. the importance of conservation). Of course it's rather vague, are you expecting I outline a detailed climate change mitigation treatise? If I could, I should be in Paris right now, not on this forum.

I'm glad we see eye to eye on stuff. I think that many of the policies you advocate are good ones to adopt for other reasons. I think you're playing with fire by hanging your hat on a warming prediction that's going to be proven wrong by policy. The "Pause Backlash" should teach you guys to quit playing with fire, or you'll assuredly get burned again. "Fire" in this case is pretending to be sure that your models are right this time around. Fair or unfair, this is what people think about you. And the more you scream about how 'settled' the science is, the more good will you're burning for environmentalists in general every time you're wrong.

Quote (rconnor)

As I discussed, there analysis incorrectly assumes a 550 MtCO2 difference in 2100 - of course that's going to be small but it's also a completely inappropriate comparison. Again, look at the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 they demonstrate two different emission pathways with drastically different temperatures. Now, I don't consider RCP2.6 to be viable, I think a realistic goal would be to follow something closer to RCP4.5.

Stop right here.

Think ROI.

If a 550 MtCO2 difference costs enough money to preserve the entire country of Honduras as a permanent rainforest habitat, how much money does the delta between RCP8.5 and RCP 4.5 cost? And what could be done with that immense, gigantic, insane pile of cash thrown at conservation instead?

This is my point.

And the point stands until you answer the dang question. Here, I'll ask it again: how much money does the delta between RCP8.5 and RCP 4.5 cost?

If you don't have a flat answer, then let's project it, using Obama's latest climate initiative. 550 MtCO2 difference costs 50 billion. Call it 10 megatons averted per billion spent to make it easy. 1 ppm difference in the atmosphere is something like 8 gigatons of CO2. RCP8.5 is 1240 ppm in 2100. RCP 4.5 is 560 ppm. That's a 680 ppm difference. 5,440 gigatons of carbon. 5,440,000 megatons of carbon. At the kind of ROI that was in Obama's latest climate plan, you're talking about having to spend 544 trillion dollars.

I love your plan sir. But it ain't near 544 trillion dollars worth of "mitigation." And it ain't near RCP 4.5.

Now that's not hyperbole, that's arithmetic. If you've got some different arithmetic to share, please share it.

Quote (rconnor)

Nevertheless, to answer your follow up question, it's because I think that we haven't yet entered into an era that could be classed as "mass extinction". We've done a lot of damage (and I completely agree we should make efforts to reduce the loss of habitat) but the real damage is yet to come. Fortunately, the solution to both climate change and land use change is very similar - reduced and more efficient consumption. Current Deforestation, fishing and agricultural practices are disruptive and changes in those practices are part and parcel in climate change mitigation.

Well your opinion is flat out wrong on that account. We are definitely already smack dab in the middle of the sixth major extinction event. The Holocene extinction we're in right now may be causing as many as 140,000 species to go extinct per year. It's staggering. And not (yet I'll admit) warming related. And here's the thing - warming is not going to make it any worse. It's already as bad as it can possibly get, in terms of extinction rates. Throwing many trillions of dollars at averting warming will probably just make a slightly less hot planet for a bunch of dead creatures to live on.

The rest of your post I'm not going to even bother with, honestly, because you're just throwing straw men around to deflect the issue. Like this one:

Quote (rconnor)

Firstly, as someone that doesn't think CO2 is an issue....

Quote (beej)

I have mentioned several times that oceanic acidification is the actual threat of CO2, and what we actually need to be freaked out about. Not warming. And that's a good point to pound on here, because climate change didn't kill the Permian diatoms. Causality. What killed the Permian diatoms was lack of dissolved calcium to build their "bones" (shells) with. It was a collapse of oceanic chemistry.

Now, tell me rconnor, how does RCP 8.5 think we're going to increase our carbon release rate by a factor of four, for the next 200 years, when our current rates of carbon release are going to exhaust the available entombed carbon in half that time? If the actual problem is mass extinction, then whatever portion of that is carbon related is going to fix itself within the next century regardless, and we need to take the 544 trillion dollar stack of cash and spend it on conservation. Or, you know, maybe a little less.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

sorry, but IMHO anyone who thinks we're going to run out of petroleum in 40 years is just plain nuts !

if this were true, the world is due for an awful "correction" in about 30 years as people scrap around for the last dregs.
and if that correction goes nuclear, well then, that'll sort of the main problem !
in any case, elevated CO2 and it's consequences would be the least of our problems.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (beej67)

The "Pause Backlash" should teach you guys to quit playing with fire, or you'll assuredly get burned again.
Re-read both parts of my commentary on the “pause”. The “pause” never statistically existed, did not show that warming had “stopped” and did not show that climate models over estimated sensitivity. The “pause backlash” really just showed how little certain portions of the public (and the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology) understand about climate science despite their overly aggressive stance against mitigation measures.

With regards to the cartoon, I could care less what a small, but vocal, misinformed portion of the population thinks. The WUWT comment section does not represent the world. Hence why world leaders are meeting in Paris as we speak to address climate change.

Quote (beej67)

Stop right here. Think ROI.
Honestly, how do you perform an ROI when you don’t include the benefits? Again, “We cannot discuss this rationally if you continue to ignore the cost of adaptation, hyperbolize the cost of mitigation, and misunderstand and overstate the “better” end of uncertainty while ignoring the “worse” end. We cannot discuss this rationally if you premise your argument in some ridiculous CATO blog post.”

Your “analysis” takes a single data point, incorrectly takes 550 MtCO2 in 2030 and spins it to be 550 MtCO2 in 2100 (when it would be much, much higher), incorrectly assumes that every ppm decrease will cost the same amount and then extrapolates that incorrectly spun single data point to 680 ppm. That’s not how this works. And by the way, 550 MtCO2 represents 19% of the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 in 2030, so as the baseline continues to rise, the Clean Power Plan would have increasing savings. Basically what you (and CATO) are assuming is that in 2030, the Clean Power Plan magically goes away and coal plants fire back up – which, of course, would make the 2100 difference rather small. It's like if Donald Trump was elected in 2030, undid all of America's climate change mitigation initiatives, re-fired back up all the coal plants and then in 2100 saying "I told you the Clean Power Act wouldn't do much!" It's beyond an incorrect analysis, it's absurdly silly. And on top of all of this, you (and CATO) are performing this absurdly silly analysis while completely ignoring any benefits. However, with analysis like that, I think CATO would love to hire you.

And no, I couldn’t calculate the cost/benefit between RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 because I understand the complexity of that analysis. I have neither the expertise nor the time – and neither do you. However, I’ve already shown you numerous examples of in-depth economic analysis from people that do have the expertise. The Stern Review is one such example.

Quote (beej67)

And here's the thing - warming is not going to make it any worse.
Again, please do a tiny bit of research prior to speaking. It’s as simple as doing a Google Scholar search on “global warming extinction” or read AR WGII (here’s the SPM, search “extinction”).

I’m not trying to downplay the current harm humans cause on the ecosystem; saying that global warming will make it worse doesn’t mean I ignore that. Currently, extinction events happen near human activity. However, with global warming, every inch of the biosphere is stressed by a changing climate. I do believe that you have a keen interest in conservation and protecting the environment, which is why I’m unsure why you feel climate change mitigation is a waste of money (well, I have my hunches).

Re: ocean acidification – From my memory, that statement was the first time you addressed ocean acidification, which was said after I talked about the Permian event. Now, I could certainly be wrong and forgot that you had previously argued that ocean acidification was an issue, in which case, my apologies.

However, my point still stands. How can you be against CO2 emission reduction measures but, at the same time, feel that ocean acidification is a serious concern? I suppose your response would be that you don’t feel we have enough carbon to burn to make it an issue. I feel that the concept of peak oil/coal is only because current prices make them not cost-effective to extract. However, once scarcity drives up cost, they become cost-effective. Furthermore, warming has a feedback effect of releasing large amounts of methane and carbon (on top of anthropogenic emissions), which I don’t believe you are taking into account. That being said, if you feel that peak oil/coal will save us from ourselves, hinging on questionable sources, then we will just continue to talk past each other on this point.

Re: Global Warming causing extinctions - More telling than what you comment on is what you don't comment on. You've completely avoided discussion on the fact that global warming has, indeed, been instrumental in past extinction events (including the Permian Event). You continually make such bold statements as "[Past mass extinctions] were a result of geologically rapid cooling. Not warming. Cooling." or "Climate change does not significantly impact pathogen vectors." or "And here's the thing - warming is not going to make [extinctions] any worse." without (seemingly) any research. The smallest amount of research would show that these statements are completely unsupported by the science and, worse, the science supports the exact opposite. You seem to think if you spout these uniformed opinions with enough conviction that it nullifies all the science that says they're wrong. Whereas I feel that science that says an uninformed opinion is wrong nullifies the opinion as having any merit in this discussion. Going back to my "playing chess against a pigeon" comment, we are playing the same game using two different sets of rules. While this may be harsh, it appears to be an accurate reflection of the conversation.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

why would you want to "play chess against a pigeon" ? do you want to mentally triumph over a pigeon ? and what if (along the lines of an infinite number of monkeys typing forever would eventually produce something like Shakespeare) the pigeon bet you ??

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
rb1957, as discussed before, my hope would not be to “beat” the pigeon (as “beating” the pigeon by the proper rules of chess would be meaningless according to the pigeons rules and vise versa), nor would my hope be to teach the pigeon to play proper chess. Instead, my goal would be to demonstrate to by-standers that the pigeon isn’t playing proper chess (which apparently, is not that obvious to some).

Your second point is amusing and perhaps deeper than you intended (or perhaps it was your intent). If it turned out that the pigeon won, according to the proper rules of chess, by playing “pigeon chess” rules it would be a mistake to conclude that the pigeon was a master (proper) chess player (ignoring the part where my chess skills are below amateur). The pigeon would win by accident. Now, if the pigeon switched from playing by pigeon rules chess to proper chess rules and then won, then the win is genuine.

Popping out of the analogy, that is to say that if skeptic arguments have any merit, they should publish them (proper chess rules) and receive the accolades they deserve. Dropping back into the analogy, the pigeon would likely coo, “but I cannot play by proper chess rules because proper chess rules are part of an elitist chess club that is discriminatory to pigeons”. Here we have two choices, (1) agree with the pigeon that there is a systematic effort within elitist chess clubs to suppress pigeons from playing proper chess or (2) conclude that it is more likely that there is not a systematic effort within elitist chess clubs to suppress pigeons from playing proper chess and, instead, it’s just that pigeons are simply not that good at playing (proper) chess.

To be clear, what I’m saying here is that there is one of two reasons for a lack of credible scientific evidence to support skeptic viewpoints – (1) peer-reviewed journals and academia are conspiring (on a global scale) to suppress skeptic views from being published (despite the fact that skeptic views do, sometimes, get published) or (2) there is not enough merit to skeptic viewpoints to get published – their arguments may sound scientific but are not scientifically sound. The problem is do we assess this choice with “pigeon chess rules" or “proper chess rules"? This is much more central to the disconnect in these debates than people understand or acknowledge.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

beej67 said:

"Coal production has already peaked due to scarcity and difficulty to extract:"

If coal production has peaked, it is because users are actively looking for alternatives, not because it is getting scarce and uneconomic to mine.

In round terms, there are about 1 trillion tonnes of proven recoverable coal reserves world-wide, with current consumption somewhere around the 6 to 7 billion tonnes per annum mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_by_country

At current global consumption rates, that's well over 100 years of proven economic supply. Of course, the current consumption rates will not be maintained (energy demand will continue to rise, while the relative costs of renewable alternatives will fall, and carbon taxes etc can change the market economics dramatically), but we are a long way from reaching the end of economically recoverable coal.

For example, Queensland Australia currently has a contentious new coal project, in a whole new coal basin (Carmichael Coal, in the Galilee basin) that has the potential to add another 60 million tonnes per annum into the mix, with a mine life of 60 years. This single mine represents only 20% or so of the output from the already proposed projects in the the as-yet untapped Galilee Basin reserves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_coal_mine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee_Basin

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2
Wow, what a fanatically religious and political response to a subject that should be settled by simply getting off your chair, opening the door, going outside , and sniffing the air. I'm sure the arguments are similar in tone to the 1450 AD response to the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? " .

I am all in favor of taking unified actions that improve the environment and also lead to a reduction in the rate of consumption of resources, regardless of the rationale. And I am equally suspicious of political arguments that lead to more taxes and more centralized power.

One question that does seem interesting, though, are the 2 claims that (a) the glaciers are melting and (b) the "pause" is due to the oceans absorbing the heat at greater depths. Both of those trends should lead to a greatly accelerating rise in the ocean level , yet no-one seems to be detecting the water level rising up to their doorstep. +6.6 inches in 91 years is not enough to force a consummate beachgoer to sell their house at the shore and move to Mt McKinley.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

3
Taxes, fees, and economics are measured in money (dollars, rubles, yen, etc.). So the determine what we are paying added taxes to avoid, the cost of the environment problems must be calculated in some money values.
So what is that cost?

Government legation that requires actions also must be calculated in money, just like taxes. So what is that cost?

So what kind of return on investment are we expecting from these added taxes, fees, and legation cost?

Lets see some numbers.

I also assume different mitigation actions have a cost, and where is the evaluation that the actions chosen are are the best value for the consumer?

Bottom line is I don't think the economics were evaluated,and I have a theory why.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
davefitz,

I find the statement “Wow, what a fanatically religious and political response” followed by “And I am equally suspicious of political arguments that lead to more taxes and more centralized power” a little odd. You, in the same breath, seem to criticism the brining of politics into the discussion right before you bring your politics into the discussion. This is rather common and I believe is a form of projectionism (i.e. "I have political reasons for distrusting the science, therefore they must have political reasons for trusting the science). If you feel the conversation is too politicized, I’d agree with you. The solution is to discuss this on a scientific basis using scientific evidence to support ones point.

This leads into your other statement, which is perhaps as unscientific as they come, “[climate change is] a subject that should be settled by simply getting off your chair, opening the door, going outside , and sniffing the air.” What does that mean? You do understand the difference between local weather and global climate, correct? You do realize the situation is slightly more complex than that, correct? You do realize that we are discussing future global temperature changes that are on par with past interglacial periods and mass extinction events (but on a much faster timeline), correct? Perhaps I misunderstand what you’re getting at.

I feel repeating what I said to SkipVought applies here:

Quote (rconnor)

As an aside, one thing I often see is the “Now, I’m just a simply man that doesn’t spend a lot of time on this climate gobbledygook and I don’t like getting dragged into this argument” act followed by “but climate change is all wrong”. If the former is true, why state the latter? Or if you strongly believe the latter, doesn’t the former weaken your position? It always feels like an attempt to isolate oneself from criticism prior to posting a strong (and often ill-informed) opinion on the subject.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (rconnor)

Your “analysis” takes a single data point, incorrectly takes 550 MtCO2 in 2030 and spins it to be 550 MtCO2 in 2100 (when it would be much, much higher), incorrectly assumes that every ppm decrease will cost the same amount and then extrapolates that incorrectly spun single data point to 680 ppm. That’s not how this works.

I patiently await your arithmetic.

Correcting mine for the first oversight, we have 2550 MtCO2 averted at a cost of 50 billion dollars, or 50 MtCO2 averted per billion spent, which only works out to be about 110 trillion dollars to get us to RCP4.5.

The rest of those assumptions are actually fairly liberal assumptions for your case, rconnor. I would have to think that Obama's climate initiative went for the cheapest solutions first, and that the last 100 ppm of CO2 aversion are going to be a lot more expensive to achieve than the first 100 ppm. I'm doing you a favor with my estimate of 110 trillion dollars. That's the economic equivalent of levying a 2% income tax on everyone on the entire planet. What's your plan?

Quote (rconnor)

And no, I couldn’t calculate the cost/benefit between RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 because I understand the complexity of that analysis. I have neither the expertise nor the time – and neither do you.

Then quit with the ridiculous act of claiming that this sort of stuff will get us there:

Quote (rconnor's plan)

I feel mitigation measures need to look at moving energy generation is as close to fully renewable as practically possible and I feel that nuclear shouldn’t be completely disregarded as a part of this. Aforestation, or at least significant reductions in deforestation, will also be extremely important. I’m unconvinced that artificially drawing down atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a practical option (hence why I feel it’s important to reduce emissions as soon as possible). Revenue neutral carbon taxes appear to be an effective method in reducing emission growth in the short term, but of course is not the panacea, and could support the shift in energy generation. Tariffs on imports from non-participating countries would help encourage participation. Allowances from underdeveloped nations need to be taken into account, which is an important political, economic and ethical discussion. Then upgrading the grid to support a transition to mainly electric transportation is the next step. Going to electric transportation while we still generate from coal is pointless; in fact, a study I read showed that on average in the US hybrid vehicles have fewer emissions/km than fully electric vehicles. The opposite is true in areas that generate primarily from non-coal sources.

It will not. Will not. Will not get us there. Citing the Stern Review, which is basically a call for global carbon socialism (see Chapter 22), does not tell us how much this costs either. You call my estimates "sensationalizing" the issue, but offer no estimates of your own, and your own plan (which I even like) does diddly squat to move the world from RCP8.5 to RCP4.5.

Quote (rconnor)

Currently, extinction events happen near human activity. However, with global warming, every inch of the biosphere is stressed by a changing climate.

Every inch of the biosphere is stressed by humans right now. We leave no stone unmolested today. But your 100 trillion dollar carbon socialism plan sure could go a long way to fixing that problem if it were reapplied to what's causing extinctions today.

Quote (rconnor)

I do believe that you have a keen interest in conservation and protecting the environment, which is why I’m unsure why you feel climate change mitigation is a waste of money (well, I have my hunches).

Because you'd have us live on a cooler dead planet instead of a living warmer one.

Quote (rconnor)

Re: ocean acidification – From my memory, that statement was the first time you addressed ocean acidification, which was said after I talked about the Permian event.

Holy smokes. Shaking my head over here.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=354416
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=378073

Quote (beej67 on the 19th of February 2014)

No, read up on it. It's a big deal, and it's basic chemistry. Just like dissolving your tooth in a glass of Pepsi as a kid, because soda is carbonic acid. So changes in atmospheric carbon concentration lead to changes in oceanic pH, and then the reefs dissolve to counter the pH change. The reefs themselves are a natural buffering system. What's even worse, is the effects oceanic acidification are having on diatom shells and other microscopic ocean organisims that are crucial links in the food chain.

Of course the idiots in the media are claiming that the reefs are in decline because of Climate Change. Nitwits. It's like everyone in the world has completely forgotten the difference between correlation and causality, including apparently most of the scientists bogged so deep in computer models they can't look around and see what's going on.

Quote (beej67, on the 26th of March 2015)

Ocean acidification, however, is a very serious deal that nobody's paying much attention to. Something like half the coral reef area in the world is gone due to the oceans slowly turning to carbonic acid. That's huge. And if the pH level crosses a certain threshold, every diatom in the ocean will die because it won't be able to make a shell. No more aqueous calcium.

That'd be a crisis that would make Deepwater Horizon look like a bird fart. Seriously.

And ocean acidification aught to be a much easier thing to model than mean surface temperature. There's no hydrologic cycle to speak of, cloud cover doesn't matter, volcanic eruptions (the thread) are pointless, etc.

You even responded to that one, rconnor.

Quote (rconnor)

However, my point still stands. How can you be against CO2 emission reduction measures but, at the same time, feel that ocean acidification is a serious concern?

I'm not against CO2 reduction for the right reasons, and I'm not against problems formulated the right way. We should be able to much more easily model, with hard science and not calibrated stochastics that fail to properly prove causality, what equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 will bring oceanic pH to near the level of diatom collapse. We should really be doing that right now. We should throw the warming stuff out the window, because diatom collapse would be instant mega mass extinction on a profound scale. It would nuke the world's oceans. We should set that atmospheric concentration as a true, scientifically vetted doomsday scenario, and we should work towards avoiding that.

If that's 2000 ppm, fine. If it's 1000 ppm, fine. But we should be very skeptical of any emissions model that puts us at triple digit ppm this century. Heck, that experiment wouldn't even be that hard to do in a lab. You just need an enclosed box full of air in which you can vary the CO2 concentration, and a bathtub full of diatoms.

Quote (rconnor)

More telling than what you comment on is what you don't comment on. You've completely avoided discussion on the fact that global warming has, indeed, been instrumental in past extinction events (including the Permian Event).

After reading into it further since you brought it up, I think the complete elimination of all calcium from the ocean's ecosystem due to acidification can be almost 100% responsible for the Permian Event. And the associated warming is a relative sideshow. (read: correlation)



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor,
My point was, arguing for the sake of arguing, studying scientific models for the sake studying models, and rallying political support for the sake of obtaining political advantage is as useless ( or as constructive) as the medieval discussion related to angels dancing on the head of a pin. If there is no detectable variation in experienced climate ( as remembered over one's own personal history) and there is no detectable rise in ocean level ( contrary to the proclaimed model) then one has the right to view the persons jockeying for political favors (or additional powers) with suspicion, and one should at least ask for clarification . For example, refusal to supply documented clarification on data fudging does nothing to allay such suspicion. Surrendering political power without reviewing motives and facts is one example of irresponsibility, and history is replete with examples of how such behavior has led to poor results.

Sure, there can be serious consequences if the Antarctic ice shelf plops into the ocean; if you think 100,000 refugees to Europe is nasty, wait until 1/2 billion people from asia and elsewhere start looking for a new home. If the Siberian tundra melts and releases the methane gases, the impact on warming would be unquestionable and represent an extraordinary positive feedback mechanism . The ultimate negative feedback mechanism that would reverse the trend would be human extinction, generally to be avoided, but I suppose there may be some people that support that option as well. In my opinion , focusing on the worst case scenarios one can imagine does not by itself prove that the current models are correct.

As I recall, there were available computer programs 20 yrs ago that would simulate the discussions between a therapist and patient , and a user who acted as the patient generally could not decipher that a computer program was responding to his answers. I have a slight suspicion that some of the blogs supporting the ACC agenda are actually computer generated responses to those posts that are not rabidly and blindly supportive of that agenda, but that is just me.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"If there is no detectable variation in experienced climate ( as remembered over one's own personal history) and there is no detectable rise in ocean level ( contrary to the proclaimed model) then one has the right to view the persons jockeying for political favors (or additional powers) with suspicion"

Since when has anecdotal experience, i.e., "going outside" prove or disprove science? That's the equivalent of saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer because you, or your relative, smoked like a smokestack for 30 yrs and suffered no ill effects. The whole point of proper science is to distance the analysis from personal experience or bias.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
davefitz, firstly, thanks for taking the time to clarify your points. I appreciate you not just making a drive-by comment.

Quote (davefitz)

If there is no detectable variation in experienced climate ( as remembered over one's own personal history) and there is no detectable rise in ocean level ( contrary to the proclaimed model) then one has the right to view the persons jockeying for political favors (or additional powers) with suspicion, and one should at least ask for clarification .
I’m sorry, this is nonsense and IRstuff touches on why. Your lack of knowledge on the science behind climate change or your (frankly unsupported, see more below) suspicion of ill-intent does not make it rationally justifiable for you to argue against mitigation measures. As I said to rb1957, I have no issues with uninformed opinions on climate science. It’s a complicated topic that I don’t expect everyone to get. I do have issues with the combination of uninformed opinions and strident resistance against mitigation measures.

You certainly can (and should) ask for clarification – go read NASA’s climate change webpage. If, instead, you choose to go to some internet blog or some other dubious source, then you are not honestly looking for clarification, you’re looking for something to support your (ideologically) pre-determined conclusion. This is such an important (and obvious) point but it always fails to sink in.

Furthermore, you imply that you are honestly looking for clarification and then say “For example, refusal to supply documented clarification on data fudging does nothing to allay such suspicion” a few posts below my comment at 25 Nov 15 22:51 (and the link from 20 Nov 15 23:30). If you missed that post, I’d highly encourage you read it. Simply put, if you feel that Lamar Smith is honestly asking for clarification (for the good of the people), then either you are not actively seeking a better understanding of climate science (i.e. you aren’t really “doing your homework” to support your position) or you are not honestly seeking a better understanding of climate science (i.e. you are getting the “answers” to your homework from dubious sources). There was never any scientific merit to Smith’s investigation, it’s an attempted smear campaign (and another good example of projectionism – “I’m politically motivated to find fault with these papers, therefore they must be politically motivated to produce these papers).

Quote (davefitz)

In my opinion , focusing on the worst case scenarios one can imagine does not by itself prove that the current models are correct.
The scientific community is not focusing on the worst case scenario. Again, perhaps you should revisit some of my earlier conversations with beej67 on the sensitivity probability distribution function (see 30 Sep 15 23:07, 20 Oct 15 19:30, or 29 Oct 15 21:19). The current range of climate sensitivity (ECS, not TCR) is between 1.5 K/doubling and 4.5 K/doubling. This is indeed a wide range but you need to understand the ramifications and likelihood of both extremes. Firstly, the probability distribution function is right-skewed meaning that there is higher probability over being greater than we expect than being lower than we expect (especially if you factor in paleoclimate sensitivity – a sensitivity of lower than 1.5 deg C makes past changes in climate unexplainable). Secondly, the difference between the low end of the sensitivity range and the high end is the difference between how quickly we need to reduce emissions to near zero, not if mitigation is required or not. Taking the TCR value from Lewis and Curry 2014 of 1.3 K (which is championed by mitigation skeptics as being a knock-down argument against mitigation, and which I’ve discussed here.) versus the IPCC value of 1.8 K means that temperatures we’d expect to see in 2050 (using the IPCC value) are instead reached in 2060 (using the LC14 value) (source from Myles Allen). So low sensitivity might buy us a little more time but it doesn’t change the need for mitigation.

But I'm sure that if someone was focusing on the best case scenario while ignoring the middle and worst case scenario (like, for example, taking the lowest possible sensitivity value and using that as justification for the "do nothing" option), you'd tell them it was a silly way of doing risk assessment, correct?

Quote (davefitz)

I have a slight suspicion that some of the blogs supporting the ACC agenda are actually computer generated responses to those posts that are not rabidly and blindly supportive of that agenda, but that is just me.
ERROR>>>ERROR>>>INITIATE SELF-DESTRCUT PROTOCOL

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

davefitz said:

If there is no detectable variation in experienced climate ( as remembered over one's own personal history)...
But there IS detectable variation in climate. (Don't confuse "climate" with "weather", and don't think for a moment that one person's lifetime recollections of their local "weather" are a substitute for global climate data. And in any case - if you want to pin your analysis on local anecdotal data, it seems every second evening news report is headlined with scare stories about "the worst floods in living memory", "the hottest heat-wave since 1937", and so on!) The data is there - temperature rise, changes in regional annual rainfall patterns, etc.

... and there is no detectable rise in ocean level ( contrary to the proclaimed model)
And again, there IS already a detectable and measurable rise in ocean levels, and the rate of rise is higher today than it was in the past. 200 mm observed rise in the last 150 years or so (with a current rise of around 3 mm per year) may not sound like much (especially if you don't live near the sea), but try telling that to some of the world's most disadvantaged people who live on low-lying coastal fringes just a metre or two above the current (rising!) sea level.

I'm not sure what you are getting at - the data is there: temperatures ARE rising, the sea level IS rising, rainfall patterns ARE changing; this is not just climate theory or local anecdotal evidence, it is backed up by scientific observations and recordings.

We can have a debate about the causes of the observed changes, the significance of apparent discrepancies or anomalies between different data sets, the observed differences between regional climate variability, or the reliability of the various models, but please - let's not start the debate by throwing out all of the data!

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Beej67,

While I appreciate the attempt to take into account some of my points, may I ask where the 2550 MtCO2 number comes from (is it the EPA estimate, I couldn’t find it anywhere)? On second thought, it doesn’t really matter because, even if it is an accurate estimate, it doesn’t save the analysis from the other issues (assuming $/ppm decreased is a constant value and, based off one data point, can be extrapolated to represent the entire difference between RCP8.4 and RCP4.5 in 2100). Furthermore, and more importantly, it continues to ignore any benefits. Continually ignoring the benefits while trying to calculate an ROI is a bit like playing chess where white pieces can take black pieces but black pieces cannot take white pieces and you always get to play as white (i.e. an example of “pigeon rules” chess).

Quote (beej67)

It will not. Will not. Will not get us there.
Again, you need to understand that I don’t believe that we will stay below the 2 deg C point because I agree with you that some policies required to stay below 2 deg C are impractical (but keeping it as a lofty goal might be necessary as continuing to raise the temperature goal (1) causes much more damage and (2) will likely enable more procrastination). However, that doesn’t mean that I completely dismiss the Stern Review – it remains a very robust analysis of the cost/benefit of climate change mitigation versus pure adaptation. While I (and you) might have issues with some of the exact policies contained in these type of reports and these exact policies differ between reports, the main conclusion remains the same – climate change mitigation is greatly cost effective over adaptation. Slightly changing policies or doing some things rather than others does not change this fact.

re: Ocean Acidification – I said I would apologize if you had commented on ocean acidification in the past and I forgot. I have indeed forgotten and I apologize.

Unfortunately, I don’ think your previous comments on ocean acidification do you any favours. You seemed to suggest that ocean acidification is ignored by the scientific establishment. I highlighted to you that “acidification” appears 5 times in AR5 WGI SPM and 9 times in WGII SPM and they dedicated an entire workshop report to ocean acidification. The scientific community is well aware that reducing CO2 emissions also reduces the risk of ocean acidification. This is contrary to the point you seem to be making.

Quote (beej67)

Every inch of the biosphere is stressed by humans right now. We leave no stone unmolested today.
(source? I guess you didn’t bother doing any further research into this matter or read AR5 WGII SPM.)

Quote (beej67)

It will not. Will not. Will not get us there.

Quote (beej67)

Because you'd have us live on a cooler dead planet instead of a living warmer one.
(source? Again, I guess you didn’t bother doing any further research into this matter or read AR5 WGII SPM)

Quote (beej67)

After reading into it further since you brought it up, I think the complete elimination of all calcium from the ocean's ecosystem due to acidification can be almost 100% responsible for the Permian Event. And the associated warming is a relative sideshow.
(I guess you didn’t bother reading the Joachimski et al 2012 quote)
All of these perfectly fit into my statement:

Quote (rconnor)

You seem to think if you spout these uniformed opinions with enough conviction that it nullifies all the science that says they're wrong. Whereas I feel that science that says an uninformed opinion is wrong nullifies the opinion as having any merit in this discussion.

You keep digging further and further in while failing to provide any evidence to support your statements. We’ve been here before (atomic bombs, photosynthesis, magical concrete and “The IPCC thinks if you paved every forest on earth you'd cool the earth down”) and it really doesn’t work out well for you. My suggestion would be drop it (as you have done with those other examples). But rather than move onto the next unsupported opinion (as you have done with those other examples), acknowledge that you might need to spend a bit more time researching the topic. You will be much better off for it.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (IRstuff)

Since when has anecdotal experience, i.e., "going outside" prove or disprove science? That's the equivalent of saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer because you, or your relative, smoked like a smokestack for 30 yrs and suffered no ill effects. The whole point of proper science is to distance the analysis from personal experience or bias.
IRstuff, it’s actually worse than that. As we are starting to see ill effects (as jhardy1 highlighted), it’s equivalent to smoking like a smokestack for 30 years and are showing early signs of lung cancer but conclude smoking doesn’t cause cancer on the grounds you haven’t died yet.

In addition, you don’t believe the diagnosis is accurate in the first place because you feel that your doctor has manipulated the test results because they are in cahoots with the government’s extreme anti-smoking agenda. So you demand that your doctor releases every email and document from the past 6 years. All while 5 other independent studies, from different doctors, from different hospitals, using different examination techniques all conclude the same thing.

You did managed to find one unlicensed doctor from the Phillip Morris Institute of Homeopathy that said you were in good health and smoking certainly was not going to be harmful (in fact, the tars entering your lungs provide essential nutrients!). You conclude that only if you are terminally ill will you feel it necessary to stop smoking and allow the doctors to start to treat you. You truly are the Galileo of your generation.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

since we're talking analogies, my take of "man-made CO2 is the only thing causing climate change" is like saying "the only thing you'll ever die of is lung cancer"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

and another one ...

at the doctor's ... "oh dear, your weight has increased since our last appointment last year. I've run several models that predict that if this increase continues then in the future you'll have massive health problems and die an early death. I assure you these predictions are valid, they've been vetted by several other doctors (only some of which are my friends) and published in many learned journals. the medical science is settled. to avoid this outcome you must start immediately a severe diet and a strenuous fitness regime, I recommend the personal trainer I use (not that there's any conflict of interest, he's just very good ... written up in many professional journals)."

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (rb1957)

my take of "man-made CO2 is the only thing causing climate change" is like saying "the only thing you'll ever die of is lung cancer"
I don't think that's a proper analogy. To translate that into climate change it would seem to say "the only thing that can cause negative impacts is global warming". (note: the analogy uses smoking = CO2 increases, lung cancer = global warming and death = negative consequences) This is, of course, untrue. There are plenty of other things that could cause negative impacts, a massive asteroid for one or a nearby supernova stripping our atmosphere.

It would be more accurate to say "smoking is the only thing that could have caused your lung cancer". This would translate to "CO2 emissions are the only thing that could have caused recent global warming". This I would agree with. It is the only theory that has explanatory power, both in a paleoclimatic sense and modern sense.

Regarding your second analogy, I'd almost agree that it is accurate minus the unsupported conspiracy of some financially motivated agenda. Please describe how this global conspiracy of climate scientists works and how they aim to profit off it? Remember that you're insinuating that his conspiracy involves nearly the entire field of Earth sciences and paleoclimatology, virtually every major, credible scientific institution and virtually every major, credible scientific journal. As I said:

Quote (rconnor)

Also, please explain how the average climate scientist gains “huge financial and social benefit”. The average climate scientist earns $70,770/year. A tenured professor at Penn State department of geosciences (home of the nefarious con-man, Michael Mann) earns, on average, $120,000/year. Apparently, not only are climate scientists really bad at science, they are also really bad at milking their financially motivated agenda!

So, rb1957, which do you feel is more likely a better description of reality:

Quote (Scott Westerfeld)

Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.
Or, perhaps, the ideological rejection of mitigation measures by layman isn't as scientifically or logically justifiable as they wish it was.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"at the doctor's ... "oh dear, your weight has increased since our last appointment last year. I've run several models that predict that if this increase continues then in the future you'll have massive health problems and die an early death. I assure you these predictions are valid, they've been vetted by several other doctors (only some of which are my friends) and published in many learned journals. the medical science is settled. to avoid this outcome you must start immediately a severe diet and a strenuous fitness regime, ""


Given that 2/3rd of Americans are, in fact, obese, your analogy falls flat. Are you saying that obesity doesn't cause health problems? That'll certainly be news to the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, or are you also arguing that there's a conspiracy there as well?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

No, he's saying that the model has no chance of accurately predicting the outcome for any individual. We all know old fat people. We all know of skinny people who died young. I'm old. I'm fat. I don't have diabetes or heart problems. No computer model is going to successfully predict when I'm going to die or of what.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I don't know about computer models, as my computer seems to have more problems than either me or the predicted climate.

I understand what is intended to be said by the doctor analogy, but I don't believe it is a realistic comparison. However, doctors do make more money the sicker we are. So maybe it is fair to say that people who study this stuff do gain by finding something, because they perserve there over bloated jobs. And truthfully, if there was nothing to be found, there would not be so much money being spent on it.

So maybe this is all just a jobs program for people who can't actually do anything else.

Having said that, I'm still waiting for those economic numbers, that show spending the first dime is worth it.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (zdas04)

I'm old. I'm fat. I don't have diabetes or heart problems. No computer model is going to successfully predict when I'm going to die or of what.
I agree that no computer model is going to successfully predict when you're going to die or of what. But that's not analogous to the climate change discussion. Climate models are not about giving us an exact dollar amount of damages at an exact year. Climate models are about giving us a probabilistic range of possible outcomes given a specific emission path. They're projections, not predictions.

Returning to the analogy, this is like your doctor saying, "Your current health problems are very likely linked to your poor eating habits and lack of exercise. We've ran simulations and they show that if you continue your poor eating habits and lack of exercise, your chance of heart attack increases by X% to Y% by 2030". Now of course you can give anecdotal examples of old fat people or dead healthy people but are you seriously willing to conclude from this that doctors are wrong in saying that "poor diet and exercise is bad for your health and could lead to future health problems"? Are you also seriously willing to conclude that you would be justified in ignoring your doctor’s recommendation to eat healthier and exercise more?

Quote (crank108)

but I don't believe it is a realistic comparison. However, doctors do make more money the sicker we are.

Quote (rconnor)

Please describe how this global conspiracy of climate scientists works and how they aim to profit off it? Remember that you're insinuating that this conspiracy involves nearly the entire field of Earth sciences and paleoclimatology, virtually every major, credible scientific institution and virtually every major, credible scientific journal. As I said: Also, please explain how the average climate scientist gains “huge financial and social benefit”. The average climate scientist earns $70,770/year. A tenured professor at Penn State department of geosciences (home of the nefarious con-man, Michael Mann) earns, on average, $120,000/year. Apparently, not only are climate scientists really bad at science, they are also really bad at milking their financially motivated agenda!

Quote (Scott Westerfeld)

Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
...and logic.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

actually what I was talking about was (mostly) ascribing a change to one factor

we are told that the only thing causing climate change is our CO2. That reasonably like, IMHO, saying you'll die early if you're over-weight.

we have models predicting the future based on our past experience and some reasonable expectations of future trends. That is reasonably like, IMHO, measuring weight gain over a period and extrapolating that.

I think there is a reasonable linkage between the dire consequences of dying early and the impending doom of climate change. Note that a 20 year old is bound to react differently to the doctor's advice than a 60 year old.

It would be an interesting development if the doctor could force the patient to take remedial steps. I think it'll be an interesting development in the (near) future if/when insurance companies start charging over-weight people more for insurance, or declining them coverage. What the definition of over-weight ? How will it change when money is involved ?

I like my analogue, and I don't really care if you don't!

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

The government has fixed that problem. The insurance companies can't descriminate, and they must cover preexisting conditions.

So why don't we just outlaw global warming? Which is what is being attempted, with no discussions about the cost, and gain from it.

No Al Gore the debate is not over, is have not even started. Give back the money, you haven't got an edge on propraganda. And have you noticed how much CO2 these people put into the air, and say we are the problem.
If you want to start me to believe, they Al Gore need to start living the life he is talking about for us.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
rb1957, it’s not so much that I don’t agree with your analogy. I just don’t think it serves your point unless you inaccurately stretch the analogy or misrepresent the situation surrounding climate change. Most of my comments are subtle but important differences between how you are trying to portray the situation surrounding climate change (i.e. insinuating some conspiracy amongst climate scientists) and what it actually is (or isn’t).

Furthermore, your analogy skips out on an important aspect – what rational do you have to disagree with the 97% of doctors that say your eating habits and lack of exercise will cause future health concerns? The only answer you’ve seemed to provide is some global conspiracy amongst doctors, which is…rather unconvincing to say the least.

Quote (rb1957)

we are told that the only thing causing climate change is our CO2. That reasonably like, IMHO, saying you'll die early if you're over-weight.
I think we need to be clear that anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the only driver causing climate change but it is the major driver (by a wide margin). In fact, the aggregate of other drivers likely works to cool the planet (this is why the attribution of CO2 can be over 100%).

One distinction comes from the fact that a million and one different things can impact when and how you die. Whereas there are actually a small number of things that can influence global climate over long periods of time - solar activity, volcanic activity, bolide impacts, orbital cycles, anthropogenic activity. You can (relatively) easily study the various drivers to determine which one has the greatest explanatory power and is most consistent with observations and physical constraints. You can then test if that explanation is consistent with paleoclimate.

When you do, it’s not just that anthropogenic CO2 has the greatest explanatory power over the current changes and is consistent with paleoclimatic changes (CO2 in general that is), it’s also that the others drivers fail miserably to describe the current changes. Solar activity has been going the wrong direction for 30+ years and is far too weak to account for the magnitude of the change (even entering a perpetual Grand Solar Minimum would not significantly influence long term temperatures, and certainly wouldn’t reverse them, if we continue to emit carbon at the rate we are). Volcanic activity has had a small and short-term impact. We haven’t had any major asteroids hit. The next orbital cycle will likely cause cooling, not warming, and isn’t expected to occur for 50,000 to 100,000 years.

So it’s not that anthropogenic CO2 is the only thing that could cause global climate change but it is the only thing that could explain the current warming and it does an extremely good job at it. Furthermore, you take that same understanding of the impacts of CO2 and apply them to paleoclimatology and you can explain past changes as well.

Quote (rb1957)

That is reasonably like, IMHO, measuring weight gain over a period and extrapolating that.
Simply extrapolations would be how energy balance models work. They are a little crude as they ignore the non-linearity of feedbacks and are highly sensitive to reference periods – they are more statistically models than physical ones. So, if you were referring to energy balance models (like Lewis and Curry 2014), then I’d agree. However, physically constrained GCM’s are not extrapolations, they are simulations based off the physical understanding of the subsystems and their interactions.

Quote (rb1957)

I think there is a reasonable linkage between the dire consequences of dying early and the impending doom of climate change. Note that a 20 year old is bound to react differently to the doctor's advice than a 60 year old.
I’m not sure I understand what your point is. When faced with evidence of “dire consequences” without remedial action, what does age have to do with the rationality behind rejecting such remedial action? Especially when the analogy breaks down because the “dire consequences” of climate change do not just impact you.

Quote (rb1957)

It would be an interesting development if the doctor could force the patient to take remedial steps. I think it'll be an interesting development in the (near) future if/when insurance companies start charging over-weight people more for insurance, or declining them coverage. What the definition of over-weight ? How will it change when money is involved ?
That is interesting and I think the analogy actually does apply to the conversation surrounding the reasonability of developed nations to support developing nations development through low-emission pathways or allowing them a longer grace period to transition to low-emission economy. This is not a simple question, like a person born with a genetic disposition to low metabolism or that didn't have parents that stressed the important of healthy eating, we need to be mindful that not everyone is in the same position as us (again, projectionism…).

However, the analogy of denying coverage to people with unhealthy life-styles as comparable to possible mitigation measures is inverted. Denying coverage doesn’t alleviate the “burden” of their life style on the public, in makes it worse - more emergency room visits rather than less costly preventative treatments. More accurate, providing coverage to sick people is kind of like the mitigation (don’t deny coverage = less costly preventative treatment) and denying coverage is like adaptation (deny coverage = more expensive emergency treatment). Hmm, denial of health coverage to sick people, deni... rejection of the scientific reality of climate change…

What about an attempt to reduce all junk foods in grocery stores by 30% by 2030? Or a revenue-neutral “fructose/sugar tax”, where funds are used to support the healthcare system or after school programs for children? Well, with the powerful and intricate corn (due to high-fructose corn syrup) and sugar lobby, that would likely never happen in the US (if you don’t know about these lobbies, I highly recommend reading into them; it’s fascinating but disheartening stuff). They have already been pushing misinformation about the adverse health impacts of fructose/sugar. Man, that analogy works on so many levels…

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@IRstuff ... "Still, by your argument, eating properly and exercising are bad for you, which they're not" ... ? who said that ? eating properly and exercising will help control weight gain, but that may or may not affect when you die because death by factors influenced by weight are not the only things that'll kill you (consider the impact, and predictability, of a #10 bus).

@rconnor ... "I think we need to be clear that anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the only driver causing climate change but it is the major driver (by a wide margin). In fact, the aggregate of other drivers likely works to cool the planet (this is why the attribution of CO2 can be over 100%)." ... CO2 is the thing we're told will make the difference, it's the thing we're setting out to control, and you're saying (all) other things are working in our favour (cool the planet).

"When faced with evidence of “dire consequences” without remedial action, what does age have to do with the rationality behind rejecting such remedial action?" ... who said anything about rationality ? the reaction is a human factor ... a 20 year old may well say "oh crap, let's get moving on becoming healthy" or "that won't happen for such a long time (I'm invincible) so i'll carry on just the same". a 60 year old may say "oh crap, I need to get healthy to live as long as I can" or "screw that, a couple extra years now isn't worth fighting for".

"Especially when the analogy breaks down because the “dire consequences” of climate change do not just impact you." ... it's a human thing on an individual, or a global, scale.

the notion of denying coverage, or of imposing a solution, was suggested as equivalent to actions our governments are going to take for our best interest. I hope we'd all revolt against a government that demanded we were all a "healthy" weight.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"@IRstuff ... "Still, by your argument, eating properly and exercising are bad for you, which they're not" ... ? who said that ? eating properly and exercising will help control weight gain, but that may or may not affect when you die because death by factors influenced by weight are not the only things that'll kill you (consider the impact, and predictability, of a #10 bus)."

So, you're advocating doing nothing, because there are a bunch things that can kill you? That's ludicrous, given that obesity and overweight is counted as one of the leading cause of death, behind cigarette smoking. As engineers, we apply risk analysis to problems like this, and attack them by Pareto ranking, which means you don't smoke, you cut down on sugary drinks and food, and you keep your weight in control. And yes, there are other things that can cause you to die, like a meteor banging through your roof while responding to this, but we know that the statistical probability is absurdly small, so we don't bother to add 10 inches of concrete to our roofs. We don't stay indoors for fear of getting into a fatal car accident, because we know that the probability is low enough to that we can move on with our lives. But, we do put on seat belts, because were we to get into an accident, being belted and equipped with airbags substantially increases the probability of survival. We can reasonably do the math.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (rb1957)

who said anything about rationality ? the reaction is a human factor
I agree that a lot of people’s reactions to climate change are emotional/ideological, not rational. That’s the problem, not an excuse. What both IRstuff and I are trying to say to you (and others) is the non-rational rejection of climate science is simply terrible risk assessment.

One thing that the discussion on this analogy has highlighted is some people’s misunderstanding of how to look at climate change science. Numerous posters have stated, in slightly different ways, “there’s no way climate science and climate models can predict what the exact temperature is going to be in 2100. Therefore, we don’t know enough to support action.” While the first part is true, it completely misrepresents what climate science and climate models are about. Climate models are projections, not predictions, and highlight the probabilistic range of temperatures/damages given a specific emission pathway.

Furthermore, the first part (cannot exactly predict) does not support the second part (inaction). Interestingly, when using the analogy, they never explicitly connected the two because, as IRstuff has demonstrated a few times, when you do, it highlights the absurdity of their logic - “Doctors cannot predict exactly when I’ll die and of what […therefore, I shouldn’t start exercising or eating healthier]”. More importantly, the second part is wrong in face of the relevant information on the subject. In the analogy, every shred of medical science suggests that exercising and eating healthy is beneficial and reduces the risk and extent of future ailments. Outside of the analogy, every shred of climate science suggests that reducing CO2 emissions is beneficial and reduces the risk and extent of future damages.

Connecting the two, basically some are asking climate science and climate models to do something they were never intended on doing and then use the fact they cannot do the thing they aren’t trying to do as evidence to support inaction, all while completely ignoring the vast amount of data, published literature and scientific knowledge that does support action. It’s not just incredibly poor risk assessment, it’s poor logic as well.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

There is a daytime soap opera somewhere in all of this . . . . Climate change and the drama that encompasses it is the new adultery.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

For many of us, it's not that you want to do something, it's that you want to follow the recommendations (demands) of progressive lawmakers.

We disagree with that on many levels, so are we to be ignored, or worse discredited, like the UN suggests?

So there it is, we want to know where these conclusions came from, and how they are justified. And if we disagree we want our say on alternitives.

So where are the alternitives? Without any to evaluate we can only conclude we are being railroaded (our rights are being taken away for some political gain).

And what examples are we being offered? The carbon king Al Gore? The jet sets in Washington or Brussels?


RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"More importantly, the second part is wrong in face of the relevant information on the subject. In the analogy, every shred of medical science suggests that exercising and eating healthy is beneficial and reduces the risk and extent of future ailments." ... clearly you haven't seen much of the world where diet is bad and the consequences are obvious. maybe many haven't seen their doctor about it, or see a doctor?, but I doubt that'd change much. Surviving a heart attack may (May) provide incentive ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (rb1957)

clearly you haven't seen much of the world where diet is bad and the consequences are obvious. maybe many haven't seen their doctor about it, or see a doctor?, but I doubt that'd change much. Surviving a heart attack may (May) provide incentive ...
So your saying that bad diet is obviously responsible for some negative health effects, or am I misrepresenting this quote? How is this not supporting what I (and IRstuff) have been saying?

Let’s back up a second. You are using the analogy of a doctor saying “if you continue with your poor diet and lack of exercise, you’ll likely die early” to stand for climate scientists saying “if we continue our CO2 emission path, we’ll likely face economic, political and ethical hardships related to climate change in the future.” I agree this is a fair analogy.

Then you imply that doctors cannot predict exactly when you’ll die and of what is analogous to climate scientists cannot predict the exact $ value of the damages. Again, I don’t disagree with this at face-value. However, it is an inaccurate representation of what climate scientists (and doctors) are trying to do.

Where the point of contention comes in, which IRstuff has done a great job of highlighting, is the extension of the analogy which concludes, (not your words) “because doctor’s cannot tell me exactly when I’ll die and of what, I see no reason to change my poor diet and lack of exercise.” This is absurd logic but is directly analogous to the “do nothing” option you are support in climate change mitigation, which emphasizes the absurd logic there. If you feel this conclusion is not what you are getting at, then what’s your point? You’re using this analogy to try to defend your “do nothing” position on mitigation but the analogy continually demonstrates how that’s a ridiculous position.

You’ve danced around this point, saying things like “eating properly and exercising will help control weight gain but may or may not affect when you die” or “who said anything about rationality”. Now you’re saying, “clearly you haven’t seen much of the world where diet is bad and the consequences are obvious”. Of course they are! You’re proving are point for us. Bad diet is bad for you. Improving your diet is good and beneficial for you. Not doing so, because doctor’s cannot guarantee it will kill you, is absurd. And this is exactly what you're trying to say with regards to climate change – models cannot tell us exact details, therefore we shouldn’t do any mitigation. That is equally absurd. It’s terrible logic and even worse risk assessment. This is what you need to address.

ornerynorsk, is that some kind of Onion-like satire outlet? It must be a joke, right?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor, sadly it is not. However, it is also not your typical mainstream media outlet that is spoonfed everything to them by official handlers.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
ornerynorsk, I believe you misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether the content was a joke or factual; I know it's a joke. I was asking whether the writers are in on the joke or not (i.e. satire or horribly deluded). IRstuff has answered my question.

[Edit: removed a portion of the comment that was very deconstructive to the conversation. It shouldn't have been said and I apologize for doing so. ornerynorsk rightly referred to it as "curt snobbery" a few posts down. I don't mean to sweep it under the rug but it does more harm than good staying in the post. If you're curious as to what ornerynorsk was referring to, you can look at the revision history of this post.]

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Thanks for that, ornery. And the fact that the New American is owned by the John Birch Society makes me more likely to pay attention, not less. The "joke" is being foisted on us by the warmists.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

This is a typical shaming technique, using the genetic fallacy, rather than dealing with the data and arguments being presented. This also happens in the scientific/academic community to anyone who does not tow the party line. I'm with Ben Stein.

Back about a hundred plus years ago a politician by the name of George Washington Plunkitt enriched himself by way of what he referred to as "honest graft." Now we have the international community attempting to plunder the producing nations for the alleged purpose of combatting climate change, which has been occurring for millions of years. All the folks (scientists, politicians, companies, Mr. Internet Al, et al) that are on the bus, get to suck on the teats of the cash cow. GWP would have affectionately called it "honest graft." I have reason to believe that it is not all that honest.

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Ah, the curt snobbery at last emerges. My expectations of humanity has remained the same. If those of you suffering from chronic omnisciency would actually take time to learn how the John Birch Society came to be, you might view it in a different light. I'll take the New American over Fox or Huffington Post any day. I appreciate your comment hokie66, thank-you!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
hokie66 (or SkipVought or ornerynorsk), perhaps you can clarify how supporting the Least Developed Countries Fund (or here) is the same as "Dictators [sic] Demand [sic] Trillions [sic] in "Climate" Loot [sic] From West"? (Also, why is climate in quotation marks? Do they not believe in climate? Was the concept of climate created by neo-commie-Nazi government scientists to brainwash our children!!!!!!) (Also, notice that the only references links provided in the article are to other New American articles, including one titled "Climate Scientist: “Global Warming Nazis” Threaten Humanity"...quality journalism!)

Quote (SkipVought)

This is a typical shaming technique, using the genetic fallacy, rather than dealing with the data and arguments being presented.
What data???? Tell me where in that article there is anything close to resembling data? Remember – numbers without sources are just that, numbers without sources.

What arguments? The article doesn’t present an argument; it dictates to the reader a conspiracy theory involving Western governments funding “trillions” (source?) to “Dictators” (source?) and provides NOTHING to support it. There’s no explanation of how funds going to the LDCF will end up in the hands of dictators. There’s nothing to address because nothing resembling a rational argument is put forward – it just says it is so. It is simply so wrong and intellectually vapid that it cannot even enter the realm of rational critique.

This is perhaps the worst, least supported, most ideologically driven, factually vacuous piece I’ve ever read. The fact this piece is being used as support for people’s views on climate science further emphasizes my point of “playing chess with a pigeon”.

NASA, NOAA, PNAS, Science and Nature = untrustworthy, leftist, "alarmist" tripe!
The New American = the only trustworthy news source!

It’s Pigeon Rules Chess!

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@ornery, I knew Robert & Marion Welch. We was a patriot, although I disagreed with some of his conclusions. The mass media has almost always attempted to marginalize unpopular contrarian views, like that international communism was objectively evil and aggressively subversive internationally and here at home. Progressives tend to belittle those who hold such views. Knew that publication when it was American Opinion.

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

2
(OP)
This little side bar has brought forward something that continually puzzles me about the ideological rejection of climate change science.

What I’ll never understand is why those that have ideological rejections to climate change mitigation measures feel the need to completely throw out their trust in the scientific institution with it. Surely there must be a middle-ground where you can accept the science (not some carefully spun version of the science) and hold your ideological identity. A type of skeptic I could get behind is the one that says, "While I don't trust government intervention for ideological reasons, I do support the scientific evidence that demonstrates mitigation measures are required. So, I'm willing to bring forward possible solutions that will also be tolerable with my ideological preferences.” Certainly if the “free-market” is the panacea to all life’s problems then there must be “free-market” solutions to climate change. Interestingly, the only example I can see is the cap-and-trade program (developed around the time of the Bush Sr. Administration), which was promoted as a “free-market” solution to climate change. It’s funny that “free-market” enthusiasts and climate change mitigation “skeptics” (but I repeat myself) now use cap-and-trade as the example of some anti-free-market government power play.

Unfortunately such voices are seemingly absent. Frankly, I don’t think I can name a single one in the climate science debate (and I’m not even limiting that statement to this forum). We certainly have people that will say something similar to that up front but, when push comes to shove, they continually try to minimize the requirement for mitigation measures (they now refer to themselves as “lukewarmists”). Almost always, these people will put the protection of the “free-market” ahead of the protection against climate change, meaning they don’t really accept the science (or they do but are apathetic to the damages).

Instead we get the typical “climate change is a hoax!” style “skepticism”. Even the more sophisticated arguments stem from this common base. Their ideologically held anti-government sentiment is disturbingly turned into an anti-science sentiment, where the scientific institution must be in cahoots with the government. That otherwise rational people could prescribe to such nonsense is a testament to the power of cognitive dissonance.

I’m sure many are thinking, “it’s not that we don’t believe in science, we just don’t believe in the particular conclusions we read. See this blog post for the science I agree with.” However, such positions require “blog science” to be not just equal to but superior to peer-reviewed science in the most esteemed scientific journals. They also require a systematic effort from the scientific establishment to block this "superior" “blog science” from being published on an unheard of scale (despite the fact that contrarian papers and contrarian authors do get published). I’m sorry but I don’t see a difference between that and an anti-science sentiment.

Perhaps the conclusions that stem from the scientific evidence are truly incompatible with “free-market” ideology. I’m not sure that’s the case but, if it is, throwing out the former to protect the latter, which is done so often, is not the reasonable thing to do. Ironically, this is analogous to the church’s attempt to throw out Galileo’s findings to protect their ideologically-founded view on anthropocentricism. The fact that many here use the Galileo Gambit and call climate change science a “religion” to support their ideologically-driven rejection of scientific evidence lies somewhere between comical and sad.

At the end of the day, I want to say that ideologically-driven resistance to climate change mitigation does not mean you have to completely turn your back on science. You can still come to the table, accept the science and join the discussion on solutions that will benefit everyone. I trust that our solutions will be better off having more voices at the table. The key, though, is you cannot play pigeon rules chess at this table – and if that means letting go of some ideologically-driven assumptions, then you must be willing to do so (as must we all). If you can’t, then you will continually be on the sidelines as the world moves ahead.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

c'mon rconnor, quit sugar coating it and tell us how you really feel.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Also, just curious . . . would global cooling be preferred to warming, or would that be bad, as well? Not sure that stasis is in the cards.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Stasis is not in the cards on geologic time scales. We've already talked about this. See 27 Oct 15 18:27 or 28 Oct 15 22:03.

If you ask questions, I'll do my best to answer them (which I've always been willing to do). If you post nonsense articles, there's no helping that.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

cooling is generally known to be much harder to live with than (modest) warming. I'm not talking about extremes, I'm talking about 2-5deg, like in the medieval warm period and the "little ice age". Those two conditions greatly changed human life styles.

Probably the big issue is how would rainfall change ? in the olde days populations had a limited area to draw on for crops so if a society's catchment area went dry they had Problems (research what happened to the Mayans). Today we have a global catchment area so we're alittle insulated from this, but not inoculated (a change in rainfall patterns would impact how we grow food, and how much it costs).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconner,
One of the reasons that many are doubters is due to a lack of credibility in the public face of the climate change movement. You seem to understand the science and argue based on those merits. That is commendable, but very few people are going to read, let alone understand, all the references you have provided. Unfortunately, many others who are more public are not very trustworthy. When we see Al "I invented the internet and Love Story is about me" Gore put out his movie (and the fact checkers shatter it), and when the scientists in England get caught fudging numbers (even if they were meaningless numbers)- the public starts to question the validity of the whole thing. In our industries, we all understand that it takes years to build credibility- and one moment to destroy it.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
hawkaz,

You bring up an interesting and important point. I agree that the perception of the average layman can be completely dissociated from the scientific reality and sometimes the messaging of the science can cause that. But let’s be clear about something – people that use Al Gore or “Climategate” as examples of reasons why they distrust the scientific reality were looking for a reason to distrust the scientific reality prior to Al Gore or “Climategate”. Anyone that is honestly looking into climate change understands that Al Gore is not the spokesperson for climate science. Anyone that is honestly looking into climate change understands the proper context of “Climategate” and that the entire ordeal resulted from misrepresenting cherry-picked (stolen) quotes out of context.

Now, of course, this is dependent on where you get your news from. The 7 official probes that resulted from “climategate” will tell you that “Climategate” did not expose any major scientific malpractice. WUWT and Fox News will tell you otherwise. Any honest and reasonable person would, when looking for information on “Climategate”, hold the 7 official inquiries as having more credibility than some biased internet blog (*if you disagree, please explain. If your explanation requires a conspiracy theory, you’ll need to provide evidence to support that conspiracy theory. In other words, follow the rules of rational discourse.). However, if I had no intention of being honest or reasonable, but instead was simply looking for something to suit my preferences, then absolutely I would take whatever source agreed with my preferences. I would also need to prescribe to some conspiracy theory to explain why the 7 official inquires were “hiding the truth”. I would also have to double-down and extend that conspiracy theory to explain why every major scientific journal and scientific institution agrees with the position of the scientists involved in the “climategate” “scandal” and disagreed with the blog posters I use to support my position. I would find myself going deeper and deeper into a pit of anti-science sentiment.

The very important aspect is where people get their information and why. If you think that some internet blog, right-wing think tank or left-wing activist group has a greater understanding the most prestigious scientific institutions we have, you are being dishonest and/or unreasonable. You are searching for information that suits your opinion rather than searching for information to help form your opinion. Furthermore, when presented evidence from the most direct and trustworthy sources (major peer-reviewed journals, prestigious scientific institutions) and you reject it because it doesn’t suit your opinion, then you are being even more dishonest and/or unreasonable. While cognitive dissonance is a natural human reaction, it is not an excuse for continuing to reject the scientific reality.

More specific to this forum, we don’t have the excuse of being scientifically illiterate to the point we are unable to read through scientific papers or digest scientific points. Frankly, this is the reason why I spend time discussion this topic on this forum rather than some average public forum. If we, as engineers and scientifically inclined people, reject the scientific reality in order to save ideological-face, then we cannot fall back on the “but I didn’t know better” excuse. Furthermore, and perhaps more depressing, we rely and use the fruits of the institution of science on a daily basis in our jobs but then, to save ideological-face, so flippantly throw that trust to the wolves when it comes to climate science. Are we really so willing to prescribe to a multidecadal, global systematic conspiracy of scientific thought-suppression to justify our believe in suspect and usually demonstrably false “blog science”? Would we design a system that goes against every published article we’ve ever read because some blog said differently? Would we perform a risk assessment by ignoring the “worse” end of the uncertainty range, misunderstanding and overstating the “better” end of the uncertainty range, ignoring the damages of failure, exaggerating the costs of remedial action, and using uncertainty as evidence in support of not doing anything? This is what troubles me most – we know better.

Hawkaz, I know I’ve posted this before but I need to ask (as no one has answered), which of the following do you feel is the more likely description of reality:

Quote (Scott Westerfeld)

Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.
-or-
Perhaps, the ideological rejection of mitigation measures by layman isn’t as scientifically or logically justifiable as they wish it was.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

My point was not about the science- but about perception. If you don't win the perception battle, the science is meaningless.

People like Al Gore are the face of climate change whether you like it or not. When he exaggerates, it discredits the whole movement.
With Climategate- Everyone (especially scientists) need to know that e-mails are forever- and they need to write them with the thought that they will go public- and how will they be interpreted. They also need to know that sarcasm doesn't work well in e-mail form. They sent out some very poorly worded and easily misinterpreted e-mails. We have probably all made mistakes like this (I know I have)- but theirs went public.

Regarding your question, I believe my response is clear from above- although I wouldn't necessarily call it ideological. Clearly laymen don't rely on scientific justifications. They rarely do. As you stated above,the public will generally get their info from blogs or 10 second sound bites.
At the same time, I know enough about history to know that just because 97% agree on something- that doesn't make it true.
I would guess that 97% thought he world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.
I would guess that 97% believed Einstein's and Hawking's theories that are now in question

I'm not saying that the 97% are wrong or conspiratorial, I just saying that I just don't know yet. The science is clearly still evolving. I'm still looking for the magic bullet that will convince me- but I don't have time to read every scientific journal, or research this myself- so I wind up reading blogs (like this one) too.


RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (hawkaz)

If you don't win the perception battle, the science is meaningless.
No, this is so wrong. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it". To Nature, our perception of science is truly meaningless. Climate change is happening, regardless of what Lamar Smith thinks about it.

Quote (hawkaz)

People like Al Gore are the face of climate change whether you like it or not.
The only people that believe Al Gore is the face of climate change are the people that don't believe in climate change. It is a straw man that is used to attack climate change - that was my point.

Quote (hawkaz)

With Climategate- Everyone (especially scientists) need to know that e-mails are forever- and they need to write them with the thought that they will go public- and how will they be interpreted...They sent out some very poorly worded and easily misinterpreted e-mails. We have probably all made mistakes like this (I know I have)- but theirs went public.
I agree. So what's your point? Write emails like they could be hacked, stolen and made public? Possibly that's good advice but how does that relate to "climategate" being misrepresented by blogs?

Quote (hawkaz)

At the same time, I know enough about history to know that just because 97% agree on something- that doesn't make it true.
Agreed but it is ridiculous to think that because something is so strongly scientifically supported that it's more likely it's not true. It's even more ridiculous to use the fact that something is so strongly scientifically supported as a reason to not believe in it.

All in all, your argument seems odd to me. Similar to rb1957 talking about the irrational human response, you seem to be saying that people's perception of science is sometimes off. I completely agree. But you seem to be using this as an excuse to justify not supporting mitigation measures, which is absurd.

If your argument is that we need to correct people's perception, then I agree. However, when people choose to go to "skeptic" blogs for their climate news then they are not honestly looking for information on climate change; they are looking for anything to support their preferences. In this case, the issue lies with the individual, not science communication.

Quote (hawkaz)

I'm not saying that the 97% are wrong or conspiratorial, I just saying that I just don't know yet. The science is clearly still evolving. I'm still looking for the magic bullet that will convince me- but I don't have time to read every scientific journal, or research this myself- so I wind up reading blogs (like this one) too.
This is fair. What, may I ask, is the "magic bullet" you are looking for? Or perhaps more appropriate, what causes you to not be convinced that mitigation measures are required?

However, if you choose to go to WUWT or Huffington Post over climate.nasa.gov, then you're being disingenuous in your open-mindedness. I'm not accusing you of doing this, just stating that point.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Nothing will be done about climate change. Your as likely to herd cats as
get the public to agree to self regulate consumption.

Hey the Earth wasn't meant to last forever. It's our destiny in this phase of society to
use it up.

I just nod and grin at the lack of change all around me, pick up my guitar and play.....

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (snakrysparky)

Hey the Earth wasn't meant to last forever. It's our destiny in this phase of society to use it up.
Your grand children (or their children) might think differently.

Apathy and ignorance.


[Edit: I misread this statement, see the clarification below]

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Nothing will be done about climate change." unfortunately, IMHO, plenty will be done because the political battle has been won, to a very large extent; because the perception battle has been won. I predict a bunch of 1/2 measures will be forced on us, that a small group will get wealthy, that most of us will pay a small cost (something keenly judged not to make us revolt), and that it won't make a significant difference in the long run. Maybe we'll be a little more efficient in our use of FFs, and that'd be a good thing. Maybe we'll sacrifice our economy in trying to achieve CC goals (eg reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 level by 2030 ... why? what difference will that make to the outcome ? what's the gain ?) and just hasten the inevitable change in the world economic picture (and, in parallel, the world political picture).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"."

A classic "I'm taking my toys and going home" statement if there ever were one. The science is settled.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"a small group will get wealthy, that most of us will pay a small cost"

Wow, we agree, but for different reasons. Note that a small group is already wealthy and getting more so by denying climate change, although not in the last 6 months or so, since oil prices tanked. In either case the rest of us suffer.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I am certainly guilty of a little apathy about the issue. Ignorance, yes also guilty as charged. I am not a climate scientist so yeah.

From what little I do know my opinion is in the "we should do something now" camp. I don't believe 97% of the scientists are in on the same conspiracy or they are all uniformly wrong.

The problem comes from some characteristic in people that at some level just refuse to accept the high likelihood that we are changing our planet for the worse.

Case in point here on this board with the irrational and seemingly magical thinking manifest by many of those who deny the science. Otherwise rational and intelligent people see only the facts that support their wishes and will form their theories about why it isn't happening with every known logical fallacy available. I realize they can't help doing so because something in the concept of a dying Earth is too terrible for them to comprehend, maybe religion plays a part. And so it goes with a significant portion of the population, enough to prevent solutions while democratic government is the ule.

There will always be deniers no matter how extreme the climate becomes and they will always attract a sizable following.




RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Here lies the problem folks. Bear with me, please.

If it were truly science, which in itself can be a very ambiguous and poorly defined term (it's relative to the speaker, not the listener), I would be on my soapbox and shouting it from the rooftops like many of the near-religious adherents in this forum. Ask yourselves, what facts do we really have? Does anyone know . . . and I use the word "know" in its proper and rightful definition so don't twist it . . . . and fully understand, the mechanisms, the real numbers in saturation points, where equilibrium resides, the range where change goes past the tipping point, the real cause and effect? Do you? The honest answer is "NO", and a very hearty and resounding NO, at that.

Facts are facts. Belief, conjecture, circumstantial evidence, popular science, and coincidental observation all do not bear the same weight as fact.

Before the zealots drag humanity once again into further bondage of taxation, regulation, and more government over-reach, let's at least establish facts.

I agree wholeheartedly that we pollute too much. Earth IS finite. There is much we can do as good stewards of the resources we have been charged with. Is more governance, Marxist penalties, and arcane "sin" credit markets the answer? Rarely.

The problem is that the policy makers (UN et al)hold little credibility as problem solvers, often employ "solutions" which are exclusive to elite and privileged committees all too happy to act on the behalf of us poor drooling cretins who cannot hold our lives together , and frankly, are not often in the best interest to all involved, wrought with corruption and thuggery. Not to mention, that many of the players are criminals.

Enough is enough. Get off your damned soapboxes and start doing something about it. Start with your own communities. Grassroots and groundswell may not be as attractive to some as having Big Brother step in to save the day, but bottom up has better potential for humanity than top down dictatorial tactics do. rconnor, it's obvious you are a well-read and highly intelligent person. People like you are the ideal candidate for such grassroots actions. You certainly have the passion. Just please don't lead us into fascism with misdirected fervor.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Snarkysparky, I really misread your first post. I thought you were happy about the situation (I took “destiny” to mean “desired goal”) but your reply clears that up. My apologies.

There is a part of me that completely agrees with your second post. The magical thinking by otherwise rational people is disheartening and at times I can become pessimistic that we will have the societal will to make the changes necessary. However, one thing you need to keep in mind, as do I, is that while the rejectionists may be loud and vocal, they are not the majority. The best thing we can do is offer the best information to help educate the general public and minimize the anti-science rhetoric.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Facts are facts. Belief, conjecture, circumstantial evidence, popular science, and coincidental observation all do not bear the same weight as fact. "

Sure, but that's as moot an argument as saying that unless you personally see and feel global warming, it's not real. Global warming cannot be a "fact" until it's obvious to everyone that the game is already over. So, we wait until we're neck deep in water and living at the now-temperate poles and then say, "Gee, now we know AGW is real."

You don't "know" that you're going to get into an accident, yet you prudently put on your seat belt and don't disable or remove your airbags. You don't "know " the exact failure point of a particular batch of steel, yet one can design and build 1300-ft tall buildings based solely on the FEM analysis with 2x and 3x safety factors. Why not design to 10% safety factors? Because you don't "know" the exact failure point, and you don't "know" the exact magnitude of the largest possible earthquake.

It's so easy to paint anyone who disagrees with, "fascist, criminal, popular science, dictatorial" isn't it? Yet, seat belts and air bags were, in fact, mandated by law before everyone had them and were made to wear them, and have saved thousands of lives. And, given that there are those with absurdly deep pockets willing and able to obfuscate the arguments, demonize the opponents, who's really the fascists?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Apples and oranges, IRstuff. Seatbelts and airbags had observable results prior to enactment. AGW mitigation does not. Warming is not disputed, causality is.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

personally i put on my seat belt to avoid the fine, and to avoid giving the police an invitation to stop me and look for more things ... "oh, your ownership is just a photocopy, not a notarised copy ..."

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (rb1957)

personally i put on my seat belt to avoid the fine, and to avoid giving the police an invitation to stop me and look for more things ... "oh, your ownership is just a photocopy, not a notarised copy ..."
So do you only buckle in an infant (say your child or grandchild) to avoid the fine and possible hassle of getting pulled over? The kid flying through the windshield isn't a huge concern for you but that damn ticket...

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

i said "i put on my seatbelt" ... nothing else. A child is a slightly different matter, in that they can't anticipate the motion of the car well, probably won't react to sudden changes in the same manner as an adult, ...

for me, in 30+ years of driving I've had 1 accident when I needed a seatbelt, and 1 when it would've made no difference ... ie the chance of a serious accident occurring is very small.

of course, over the population there are lots of serious accidents, and seat belts have saved an enormous number of lives.

it's similar to flying ... do you refuse to fly because of the risk of a fatal accident, or do you accept the risk ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (rb1957)

i said "i put on my seatbelt" ... nothing else. A child is a slightly different matter
My point exactly. Climate change doesn't just impact you. You have to factor in others.

The Indonesian islands might need a seat belt from sea level rise. Central Africa might need a seat belt from drought. Bangladesh might need a seat belt from extreme heat. And they aren't the ones doing the majority of the driving.

Quote (rb1957)

do you refuse to fly because of the risk of a fatal accident, or do you accept the risk ?
I base the level of risk on the probability and severity of failure. Air travel deaths per billion km is 0.05 (for comparison, car travel is 3.1 deaths per billion km). So, I can accept that risk.

The IPCC states in AR5 WGII SPM:

Quote (AR5 WGII SPM)

Some risks of climate change are considerable at 1 or 2°C above preindustrial levels (as shown in Assessment Box SPM.1). Global climate change risks are high to very high with global mean temperature increase of 4°C or more above preindustrial levels [which is well within our "do nothing" emission scenario] in all reasons for concern (Assessment Box SPM.1), and include severe and widespread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, and the combination of high temperature and humidity compromising normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors in some areas for parts of the year (high confidence).
and

Quote (AR5 WGII SPM)

Heat stress, extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, and water scarcity pose risks in urban areas for people, assets, economies, and ecosystems (very high confidence). Risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in poor-quality housing and exposed areas.
and

Quote (AR5 WGII SPM)

By 2100 for the high-emission scenario RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is projected to compromise normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors (high confidence).
(I suggest reading through WGII SPM for more examples of the probability of various issues)

That's like the airline saying they have high confidence that the plane will experience serious technical issues if preventative maintenance measures aren't done.

That's a flight I'm not willing to take. That's a flight I'm sure as hell not willing to take everyone on the planet on.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

The problem with climate change regulation, is the same problem there is with migrotory bird regulation, or western water regulation. They unfairly benifit some, and adversely effect millions.

The taxes won't affect the rich, and the poor will be exempt, and so most of the impact will be felt by the middle class and people in rural areas.

This will place more stress on people, and may push a few more over the edge.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"They unfairly benifit some, and adversely effect millions."

Perhaps, but how is that different than anything else in the world? Can we honestly say everyone was equally affected by the "Great Recession?" I think the only reason there's such a big hoopla is that the people that would normally benefit are bitching because they know someone else will get the spoils.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (ornerynorsk)

and I use the word "know" in its proper and rightful definition so don't twist it
I’m not sure you are. The entire existence of the field of philosophical epistemology is due to the search for the “proper and rightful definition” of knowledge. So unless you’ve solved the prime question of epistemology, then I don’t think you can say you are using the “proper and rightful definition”.

But let’s get to the question (and then extend that to talk about the real world utility of our knowledge of climate science), “what facts do we really have”? CO2 causes a greenhouse effect that warms the planet is a fact (note: not the magnitude, especially including feedbacks, is not). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising is a fact. The planet is accruing energy (warming, melting ice, rising OHC, etc.) is a fact.

You take these facts and you begin to build competing theories that explain and are consistent with the facts. Many people like to take “it’s natural” as the null hypothesis. However, climate doesn’t magically change, even “it’s natural” has a physical mechanism that drives the change. So you begin to examine the possible drivers. Solar activity is working in the wrong direction and, furthermore, the magnitude of the change in solar activity is too small to account for the magnitude of change in the climate. Volcanic activity has been too short-term and too weak to explain the magnitude of the changes. We haven’t had a major bolide impact that could explain it. Orbital cycles are about 50,000 to 100,000 year too early and the wrong sign (they would cool instead of warm), the previous warming cycle ended about 10,000 year ago and the rate of warming is completely inconsistent with orbital cycle forcing. Geothermal activity is far too weak and far too consistent to explain the rate and extent of warming (Stein and Stein 1992, Davies and Davies, 2010). Heat redistribution from the oceans is just that heat redistribution and cannot explain why the atmosphere, land and oceans (at all depths) are accruing energy without violating the conservation of energy. Any other non-magically drivers you can think of?

So then you look at non-natural drivers. The heat by-product of anthropogenic activities is orders of magnitude too weak to explain the changes. Land use changes do play a part in the changes but represent a small portion of the changes. Anthropogenic aerosol emissions have the wrong sign but do have an impact (this further emphasis the existence of a warming driver). Anthropogenic CO2 emissions correlate well with the changes, is consistent with the physics (that has been around since the 19th century) and can explain the magnitude of the changes.

The next step is to determine if that hypothesis is consistent with past changes. Looking back at the Earth’s history, major climatic changes coincide with major shifts in CO2 concentrations. CO2 concentrations fall, so do temperatures. CO2 concentrations rise, so do temperatures. But CO2 concentrations don’t magically change, so how did the CO2 get released/stored? At each major climatic shift, we can identify a driver that would cause a shift in CO2 concentrations – volcanic activity, orbital tilts, bolide impacts changing topology (note: see my discussion on whether CO2 leads or lags temperature changes at 24 Apr 15 20:24 – short answer, both). Try explaining paleoclimate using “skeptic” science where the planet is not sensitive to CO2 concentrations; it simply cannot be done. Low climate sensitivity is inconsistent with past and present changes.

Like any other scientific issue, when a hypothesis shows to have extremely good explanatory power of current and past changes and is consistent with other scientific facts and theories, it becomes the leading theory. As far as I’ve read (and that’s quite a bit), there is simply no other credible competing theory (at least none that past the first litmus tests described above). Here, some will jump out and say “we don’t need a competing theory, we just need to disprove the leading theory”. That certainly is true – but where is that scientific dagger in the side of the anthropogenic CO2 theory? It certainly isn’t the “pause” (see Part 1) and it certainly isn’t “models are wrong” (see Part 2). As I continually state, there is no credible* scientific evidence that casts serious doubt on the theory. (*note: blog science is not credible scientific evidence and has been repeated shown why that is – because it’s flawed)

This is actually a very important point – if climate science is so obviously wrong, where is the scientific explanation on why it’s wrong? Given the billion, if not trillion, dollar impact climate change has on oil companies, surely they could finance a model or study to conclusively demonstrate the error of climate science. These companies include some of the smartest people on the planet, surely they'd be able to see through the "tricks" of climate scientists. Exxon’s own internal scientists heavily researched climate science but their results agreed with the scientific consensus. The fact that they then proceeded to fund rejectionist “think-tanks” and made public statements to muddy the water now has them in some hot water. Even people like Willie Soon’s “deliverables” to energy companies have resulted in little more than a handful of largely discredited papers that were weak to begin with. When they actually did the science properly, their findings agreed with the scientific community (imagine that!), so they decided to fund institutions to push out Gish Gallop and unscientific drivel to seed doubt. At the end of the day, for me, the ethical (and legal) questions of this tactic are secondary to the fact that there simple is no conclusive, consistent and credible scientific argument against the current theory despite an enormous self-interest to find one. That is the most telling point.

Climate change has some very real and very significant consequences to our daily lives, so projecting the possible impacts becomes an extremely important societal concern. As we don’t have a crystal ball and the interdependent feed-back effects are not as simply to apply as Newtonian laws of physics, this becomes a risk assessment exercise where models are an important tool.

Models are not designed, nor could they be, to predict an exact dollar amount of damages at a specific time. Instead, they project the possible range of impacts, given a particular emission path. No single model nor the ensemble mean is expected to give the exact right answer but it offers crucial insights in order to be able to perform the risk assessment. That insight is clear – increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration greatly increases the risk and extent of future damages. Limiting the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration limits the risk and extent of future damages. Mitigation, even at the “better” end of the uncertainty range, is beneficial and becomes even more imperative at the “worse” end. This is on top of the fact that the probability distribution function is right-skewed (i.e. it is more likely to be “worse” than we expect than “better” than we expect). So while the uncertainty is still large, it does not significantly impact the message.

Like any risk assessment exercise, we need to deal with and account for the uncertainty, not use it as a reason to stop doing risk assessment. Furthermore, like we engineers know, uncertainty is not your friend in risk assessment. We don’t get to focus on the “positive” end and ignore the “worse end”. We certainly don’t get to ignore the cost of the possible damages while hyperbolizing the cost of mitigation measures. That would be absurd but is repeatedly done by “skeptics”.

The rebuttal is often “we need to know more before we act”. However, the evidence demonstrates that the longer we wait to act, the worse it will get and the more drastic our emission reductions need to be. It’s been 50 years since President Johnson was warned about the impact of global warming and since that time the planet has continued to warm, ice has continued to melt, sea level rise has accelerated and the early signs of stresses on the biosphere are showing. Perhaps, a more appropriate response would be, “what more do you need to know?” Their reply, as IRstuff pointed out, seems to be “we need to wait until the consequences of climate change are dire before we’ll support action”. This of course is like saying, “I’ll support seatbelts after I go flying through the windshield.” It is, again, utterly absurd risk assessment.

Any claims that “I’m just not convinced” are pure appeals to ignorance or purposeful misdirection. The science is strong and the science is clear – we need to reduce CO2 emissions as much as possible and as quickly as possible. How we go about accomplishing that is still an ongoing debate. As I said before, I’d more than welcome those with an ideological resistance to government intervention to the table to join in this conversation. However, the conversation on mitigation measures follows the rules of rational discourse; “Pigeon rules chess” doesn’t fly. Statements require credible supporting evidence. The more fantastic the claim, the more tight the evidence has to be (i.e. to appeal to some ridiculous global conspiracy involving nearly every scientist and government colluding to invent a environmental crisis for personal gain needs support or you get shown the door). Logic, reason and science trumps politics, conspiracy and ideology.

(To your comment about working at the grassroots level, I do. However, while you can have a slight positive impact, the problem is grassroots is not effective enough. The best use of our effort is through educating those around you, cleaning up misinformation when it is peddled and pushing your politicians to support action. High level action is required to address climate change and that requires public and political support. Public and political support requires proper education on the subject and combating misinformation.)

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@rconnor: Do you have any idea as to why the popular media doesn't latch onto energy accumulation (radiative energy imbalance) instead of 'global' temperature more readily (or for that matter, even the more science oriented articles)? The latter doesn't even seem to me as a rational approach even if temperature is a fairly well understood concept to the person experiencing it (i.e. the public). If anything, taking the approach of talking about the temperature specifically creates the atmosphere (pun intended) for people to spout inane arguments such as "well it's not hot here right now so where's all this global warming!?"

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

. . . as he slams his fist on the pulpit, admonishing adherents and apostates alike that these times call for a more fervent faith. A faith that demands action and personal sacrifice. "Destruction is nigh", his voice rings through the great hall. What has been accomplished by the great world body is very necessary, but yet so very little. There simply is no alternative, these facts would be clear to a blind man. The pleading, but ever more demanding dictum continues, building like the surf before a storm. Now he grows wild-eyed and charismatic. The speech comes forth polished and effortless, as if it is his very soul being revealed to the audience. With such conviction, how could he be wrong? All of the evidence, the reasoning . . . why, he's such a learned man, and it all sounds so convincing. He allows several moments for the captivated throng to breathe, to fully absorb their fate should his words not be heeded. A sudden breeze wafts through the tent as the righteous amongst the congregation posture forward so as not to lose a single syllable of these precious words. Somewhere in the crowd a wicked detractor mutters "fools", only halfway beneath his breath. He's not even noticed, except by the few close to him, and quickly dismissed with scornful glances down their noses. . . .

Religion, rconnor, religion.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (BiPolarMoment)

Do you have any idea as to why the popular media doesn't latch onto energy accumulation
Good question. There are some that promote the idea that OHC should be the main metric to represent climate change and 2 deg C is a poor target. However, I’ve also heard some decent arguments on why that isn’t a good idea.

I suppose those talk more about the aspect of policy targets and your question is more on just as a metric to discuss climate change but having a metric that reflects policy targets is important. Neither OHC nor global temperature are immediately intuitive, both require some supplemental explanation. More importantly, neither, on their own, tell the whole story. No single metric does.

Is OHC a more representative illustration of the energy imbalance that drives climate change than temperature? Yes and it is a slightly smoother signal to answer the question, “have we been accruing energy”. But it’s not complete and I’d argue it’s slightly less intuitive to the layman and more difficult to connect to future climate change impacts than temperature. My position is use whatever metric you want, so long as you’re not misrepresenting the bigger picture.

“Skeptic” sources will (and can) use any metric selectively and dishonestly to misrepresent the bigger picture. An example on these forums is beej67 using North Atlantic (60-0W, 30-65N) surface (0-700m) heat content to counter act my claim that global OHC has continued to rise throughout the “pause”, here at 8 May 14 14:28, my reply at 8 May 14 15:20. Note that a cooling North Atlantic is, in fact, consistent with the science. So not only was it an attempt to dishonestly spin a metric to misrepresent the big picture but even the dishonest spin doesn’t actually work against the big picture. So wrong, it’s not even wrong.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (ornerynorsk)

Religion, rconnor, religion.
You are accusing me of dogmatic support of a position regardless of facts or evidence (seemingly based on some delusional fantasy story you made up). You seem to forget that it's not just my opinion but the reflection of the scientific evidence.

In reality, I have facts and scientific evidence to support my position and have repeatedly presented, explained and defended them. While you have stated an unsupported belief in some global conspiracy based on a zealous support of the free-market to support your position, despite all the facts and evidence to the contrary.

One of those sounds like religious belief.

I asked “if climate science is so obviously wrong, where is the scientific explanation on why it’s wrong?” If you have facts or scientific evidence to support your position, let’s discuss them. Thus far, it’s been notably absent from your comments.

Frankly, your complaining about the rhetoric of the climate change debate, while completely ignoring any conversation on the science and spewing your own rhetoric, is a bit tiresome to say the least. You want to have a non-ideological based conversation on climate change – then let’s talk science (which is what I’ve done since day one). Otherwise, you’re part of the problem.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"In reality, I have facts"

No, you don't. You have suppositions and hypothesis. And I'm in the same boat, I have no facts to support my position. What I do have is clarity of how often the population-at-large is punished by government excess, be it policies or taxation. Distrust based on previous experience. Anthropomorphic causation has not been proven corrollary to warming. It just hasn't.

Yes, this is all a bit tiresome. I rather doubt either of us will change our belief based on the striving or the affirmations of the other, so I will happily digress and leave the conversation to others who are more suited to discussing the brass tacks of, ahem, science.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
I don't have facts or evidence? None? You see those dark blue, underlined words scattered throughout my posts (there's probably well over 200 of them in this thread alone) - try clicking them and reading the information that comes up. Or is every scientific institution and journal fraudulent?

Let's be clear on something - just because you refuse to acknowledge the science surrounding climate change and, instead, project your zealous ideological views onto the topic does not mean that others do. Climate change is a scientific issue that should be (and is) discussed scientifically. The only people that complain about climate science being a political issue are the ones that refuse to discuss the issue scientifically but, instead, project political ideology onto everything (you can see a few examples besides yourself in this thread).

I'll ask you this question ornerynorsk and please, answer directly - which of the following is more reasonable:

(A) Nearly every climate scientist, scientific institution, university and major scientific journal have, through pressure from every government from around the world, contrived an environmental crisis by faking data and publishing fraudulent papers for well over 50 years, which they will mutually benefit from at the cost of the people, despite the billion (if not trillion) dollar interest from corporations and governments (including those involved in the conspiracy) to expose this scam.

or

(B) Your ideology has blinded you from being able to examine this issue honestly.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@ornerynorsk:
Anthropomorphic causation has not been proven corrollary to warming. It just hasn't.

I assume therefore that you would also subscribe to some (or all) of the following claims:

Smoking has not been conclusively linked to lung cancer. It just hasn't.
Evolution by natural selection hasn't been proven. It just hasn't.
Pi has not been proven to be irrational. It just hasn't.
The Earth has not been proven to be a globe. It just hasn't.
The universe hasn't been proven to be 13.8 billion years old. It just hasn't.
</sarcasm>


http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"What I do have is clarity of how often the population-at-large is punished by government excess, be it policies or taxation. Distrust based on previous experience. Anthropomorphic causation has not been proven corrollary to warming. It just hasn't.

You are obviously conflating two separate things; one of which is clearly a hot-button issue for you. While it's true that governments are not often acting in everyone's best interest, even you seemed to agree that seat belt laws benefited people. Just because governments support carbon reduction does not make it a bad thing; guilt by association does not apply here. Many laws currently perceived as ill-conceived had beneficial intents, but those intents are often subverted by people willing and able to warp things to their own advantage.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

First of all, it should have been anthropogenic, my mistake. I work with anthropomorphic daily.

2. rconnor - Really? those are the only 2 choices? I've said my piece, you know my position, there's no point for further discussion on it. Apparently being incorrigible, stubborn, and unwilling to consider other's ideas is only bad if one is on the unpopular side of the argument. That's healthy, isn't it?
3. jhardy1 - not even worth a response. Oh, and the 13.8 billion years, give it another decade or two, it will change again. Yet another issue that apparently the "science" is not settled.
4. IRstuff - Carbon reduction. I've never said it's a bad idea. Cap and trade, however, is a horrible idea. The sale of indulgences. Now here is a business model that's proven to be stellar (yes, sarcasm). "We know it's bad for you, but maybe if you're willing to pay, it will not be so bad". Glorious. Perhaps we should put the large religious organization that has had prior experience in this area in charge of climate control? Then we can have guilt and self-righteousness come into play, as well. Wouldn't that be fun?

If the science is showing carbon to potentially be lethal, cap it. Not cap and trade, just cap. Begin reducing the supply. Let innovation mitigate the inevitable short-term rise in price and demand for fossil fuels. Let the market dictate the solutions in absentia of carbon fuels. Cap and trade is just going to propagate the rise of a new class of evil capitalist, is it not?

Seatbelts are a terrible comparison for the warming issue, but since IRstuff wants to harp on this, let's ponder the seat belt issue for just a moment. In a free society, should people be allowed to make mistakes, even if said mistake could cost them their life? Don't you all like a little paradox with your coffee to get the day going? I think seat belts are a splendid idea. I don't drive 2 blocks without one, even though many cars did not even have seat belts in my formative years. Should they be mandated? I believe they should until age 18, the age of consent and legal adulthood. The notion of government overlords dictating every facet of adult life and keeping us poor minions "safe" is a very warm and comforting idea to many of you. But really, for the state to financially penalize every misstep, every infraction of what it deems is righteous, is beyond asinine. It is the erosion (and eventual collapse) of any free society. Live life on your knees if you so desire. You do what's best for you, but don't make all of us attend your party by force of the state.

Really folks, the herd mentality is starting to rot some of your brains.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Quote (orenerynorsk)

If the science is showing carbon to potentially be lethal, cap it. Not cap and trade, just cap. Begin reducing the supply. Let innovation mitigate the inevitable short-term rise in price and demand for fossil fuels. Let the market dictate the solutions in absentia of carbon fuels. Cap and trade is just going to propagate the rise of a new class of evil capitalist, is it not?

Could you elaborate? I don't see how a simple cap is that much different from cap and trade? I may not be familiar enough, but in both cases, total emissions would be capped. In the cap and trade scenario, it would benefit those companies that innovate by allowing them to sell their excess cap to the companies that are less innovative.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Not knowing the difference between anthropogenic and anthropomorphic is what a detective would call "a clue".

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Ornerynorsk, I am not unwilling to considers others ideas, I have repeatedly said that I would fully welcome someone that said “while I have reservations about government intervention, I accept the science that states we need mitigation measures.” I am also willing to discuss the scientific issues surrounding climate science (but ideas that are scientifically unsupported, I need not agree with). However, I am unwilling to consider the idea that you can, with a wave of your hand, throw out all the science behind climate change because you don’t like it and then proceed to conclude that because, according to your hand waving, the science is junk that mitigation measures are not required. You, unfortunately, have done the latter.

You don’t like the conclusions, so you decide that the science must be wrong. Rather, the discussion must be that we discuss the science to see if the conclusions make sense. You have inverted the discussion and made it impossible to discuss rationally.

Regarding the two choices, it’s the two choices you’ve back yourself into. You’ve decided you don’t want to discuss a scientific issue by discussing the science (it’s as ridiculous as it sounds). If you want to avoid discussing the science because it’s all rubbish then you agree with option (A). If you want to avoid discussing the science because your ideology tells you not to, then you agree with option (B). There is an option (C), “you don’t want to discuss the science but nevertheless agree with it, so let’s move on to how to tackle climate change”. But your blind rejection of the science pulls that off the table.

Now, finally, you have started discussing various measures. You mention cap-and-trade as a measure you don’t like. You also mention to “just cap it”. But isn’t the trade element what free-market enthusiasts like about cap-and-trade (and why it’s considered a free-market solution to climate change) because, as zwtipp05 rightly pointed out, it promotes and rewards ingenuity? Beyond that how and why is cap-and-trade not appealing to a free-market enthusiasts but just a plain cap is?

All this being said, I’m not a huge fan of cap-and-trade. I push for a revenue neutral tax program such as in British Columbia. Here the reward on ingenuity is inherent (you pay less of the tax), which eliminates the need for a costly and complicated trading program. It also sends the signal that CO2 emissions aren’t just costly over some arbitrary limit, every ton of CO2 is. To stay below 2 deg C, we need to go net zero as soon as possible, not reduce to some cap level. Furthermore, the money goes back into the community through supporting low-income families and other tax breaks. Some say, “a tax to fund tax breaks is silly” but it misses the point – tax a behavior you as a society want to discourage but not outright ban (i.e. carbon emissions, alcohol or smoking) and reinvest that money back into the community.

However, a revenue neutral tax program, a simple cap or cap-and-trade are, alone, not enough. We cannot meet the Paris Agreement target without substantial change to energy production and transportation. Basically, we need a fully (or darn near fully) renewable energy supply (and I’m not 100% opposed to nuclear being a part of that) first and then a transition to fully electric transportation. I say this being fully aware of the technical, societal and economic impracticality that this will happen by 2050. This is why I’ve always been pessimistic about the 2 deg C target – I don’t think it’s doable…without significant technologic, social and political change. Perhaps Paris is a sign that change is coming, perhaps its more empty promises. Frankly, I sit somewhere in between. (Either way, it’s a wakeup call to “skeptics” that their little silos of doubt that they hang out in aren’t nearly as well supported or prescribed to as they believe)

Regardless, what the fact that a 2 deg C limit is incredibly difficult to meet means to me is we need to start doing as much as practical possible as soon as practical possible. A revenue neutral tax program seems like a no brainer in the short term. More stringent building energy codes seems like a no brainer in the short term. Heavy investment in “low-hanging fruit” renewable energy production (i.e. renewable where and to the extent it is practical) in the short term. These measures will put a serious dent into our emissions. Hopefully it will give the technology, society and politics the time to develop to the level where long-term zero net emissions is possible.

If we overshoot 2 deg C at least we start limiting the upper-end. The damages of climate change are not a simple on/off point (although there might be some really bad tipping points above the 5 deg C mark), it’s a sliding scale. We are already locked in to the lower end of the damage spectrum, we just need to decide how much further we travel.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Jumping on a molehill of a simple typo and proclaiming it a mountain of ignorance is what said detective would refer to as "childish and contentious". But then, I find myself doing the same from time-to-time, so, well played.

zwtipp05, very true, in a cap and trade scenario there could be financial windfall, and therefore incentive to improve efficiencies and reduce consumption. What is more likely to happen, and I've read discussions on several variations of this theme, is that a clearinghouse or agency would be set up to monitor and regulate the market, much like the function of the SEC, which would require the inclusion of large banks or financial institutions to handle the monetary aspect of the transactions. Of course, transaction fees are a natural part of this scenario, as are penalties and fines for improper or untimely filing and reporting. More importantly, how is valuation determined? Will it be fixed by a governing body, or allowed free range on the open market? More bureaucracy.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Let's take a closer look at how our government chooses to handle problems. Here's an independent case that serves as an example of how our government intends to correct a different issue that has been repeatedly discussed in the media recently. Those of us who fly radio controlled vehicles responsibly can thank a small number of imbeciles who have been flying their drones in restricted airspace for this. A new government mandate will be implemented on December 21st of this year that impacts everybody who flies these types of aircraft:

AMA (American Modelers Association) and the FAA Registration Process

Today (December 14, 2015) the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. AMA was a member of the task force that helped develop recommendations for this registration rule and argued throughout the process that registration makes sense at some level but only for those operating outside the guidance of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes.

Unfortunately, the new FAA registration rule does not include our advice. The rule is counter to Congress's intent in the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and makes the registration process an unnecessary burden for all of our members who have been operating safely for decades.

While we are disappointed with the new registration rule and still maintain that AMA members should be exempt from registration, the rule is being implemented over AMA objections. Therefore, we want to provide you with important information about the registration rule and how AMA members can comply with the new federal requirements:

• All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones.
• Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register.
• You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft.
• You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access.
• The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21.
• There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days.
• You only need to register once every 3 years.
We are still working out the logistics for this process. Some details are still being discussed, including:
• We are seriously discussing with the FAA a system where your AMA number could be used as your federal registration number as well. At this point, this is only a proposal and details are not yet finalized.
• At this time, AMA members will not automatically be registered when the registration website launches next week. However, we are in conversations with the FAA about the best way to streamline the registration process for AMA members going forward.
This is an ongoing process and we will continue to provide updates on the registration rule. Stay tuned to modelaircraft.org/gov, social media and your email for the latest news on the registration process.

Thank you,
AMA Government Relations and Advocacy Team

© 1936-2014 Academy of Model Aeronautics.
5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Tel.: (800) 435-9262; Fax.: (765) 289-4248
All rights reserved.
www.modelaircraft.org


Those of us who have been flying these aircraft for decades without incident are suddenly being subjected to government scrutiny and have to register our aircraft. Why? Because when the cops get their hands on one of these drones there isn't an easy way for them to trace it back to the original owner. By registering the vehicle they will have a much easier time doing this. So in this case you have a few idiots who have been creating potential problems (note that no aircraft crashes have been caused by the flying of these drones yet) and everybody else ends up being affected. Do they really think that the people who are responsible for creating these problems will actually register their aircraft? Really? Will this strategy solve the problem? NO!

We have people in government who are more than happy to implement new regulations, requirements, policies, etc. But these same people rarely take a look back in the past to determine how well (or how poorly) their policies actually worked. I have a very skeptical outlook regarding government intervention in the AGW debate for this reason.

Maui








RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

it is often the case ... a few idiots messing it up for the masses of sensible users.

and i agree with ornerynorsk,
if burning FFs is the worst thing since sliced bread and
if we continue to do so the science shows that this will doom our civilisation within a relatively short time,
then the logical course of action is to stop burning FFs ... stop mining them, boycott (similar to North Korea) countries that continue, at a minimum charge $10/lt for gas, ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Maui
Registration is likely to help. Most will be more conscious of where they are flying with registration numbers on their craft. Of course there must be penalties for flying craft without registration.

But if you define solving the problem as the elimination of all future incidents then no it won't do so. What would short of a total ban. Any better ideas?

Everybody loves to gripe about the government and when they find an example to support their view we all hear about it as though it was the whole truth. If you don't like what the government does get involved and engage in politics.

Considering any large societal problem involving the common space and individual actions. What else but government is there when individual behavior must be controlled for the common good.

This type of thinking is why I am skeptical of any intervention in the global warming crisis.

Ornerynorske: Who but government can set a cost for individual action that damages everyone equally with only the actor reaping the profit.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Snarky, the vast majority of RC pilots are responsible people who are very conscious of where they are flying already. They know how dangerous these aircraft can be, and take reasonable steps to safeguard themselves and the people around them. The small number of bad apples that have been discussed in the media will not register their aircraft for the very same reason that they fly in restricted airspace - they are irresponsible people. And they would fear getting caught if their name was attached to a registration number. So the people who are not causing the problem will be the ones to register their aircraft, while the bad apples who are causing the problem will not. This is why registration will not help. The AMA is an organization that represents model aircraft enthusiasts, and the excerpt that appeared in my prior post was taken directly from them. They are my representatives in these matters, and they attempted to work with the government to develop a plan that would institute positive change. But they got shot down. Positive change did not take place. They were overruled by a group of clueless representatives who apparently feel a compulsion to take action, no matter how ineffective, in an attempt to show that they are doing something to address the problem. Morons.

Maui

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Cap and trade is not some untested, risky, possible future system for reducing emissions. We have had a cap and trade system in operation since 1990. It was implemented under George H. W. Bush as the free-market alternative to simple government regulatory limits on emissions. The existing system has been very successful at reducing the emissions associated with acid rain. There is no great regulatory burden. Caps are set and are ratcheted down over time. The emitters freely trade credits among themselves with prices set by the marketplace. We are talking about expanding an existing and very successful system to include C02. This is not something new. I have included a link describing the history of cap and trade and the success of this system. The very fact that most of you don't seem to know that this exists demonstrates that it is working.

www.smithsonianmag.com/air/the-political-history-o...

Johnny Pellin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

JJPellin, that's good to know. Thanks for the info!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (snarkysparky)

Who but government can set a cost for individual action that damages everyone equally with only the actor reaping the profit.
Bingo.

The response will be, “the free-market can” but I don’t think free-market enthusiasts even understand what that means. The reality of our world is most consumers are driven by searching for the lowest cost option (or, sometimes, best "value" but even that doesn't consider externalities) and all corporations are driven by maximizing profits. Regulations are required to limit exploitation to achieve those goals. In absence of regulations, we see abuses of exploitive actions or externalizing costs/risks and privatizing profits (ex. deregulation of the California energy market, deregulation of financial institutions). But somehow, under the idealized free-market the utter lack of regulations will make the consumer perfectly aware of externalities and make their decisions, and subsequently the producers’ decisions, perfectly ethical and for the greater good. This is, to me, wishful thinking.

Quote (JJPellin)

Cap and trade is not some untested, risky, possible future system for reducing emissions.
I agree (and I am aware, see my comment at 8 Dec 15 22:34 – in fact, I was going to link that exact article but got lazy). However, I still feel revenue neutral carbon tax is a better way to go, for the reasons I described above. Nevertheless, you bring up an important point.

Quote (rb1957)

then the logical course of action is to stop burning FFs ... stop mining them, boycott (similar to North Korea) countries that continue, at a minimum charge $10/lt for gas, ...
That’s the high level idea. But you cannot just enact a unilateral ban on fossil fuel consumption tomorrow. We need solutions on how to transition to that point and make sure that transition is fast enough to prevent the worst of the damages but is still technologically, socially, politically and economically possible.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Those of us who have been flying these aircraft for decades without incident are suddenly being subjected to government scrutiny and have to register our aircraft. Why? "

The same situation will probably apply to Muslims if certain parties become President. If there are further incidents, I would not be surprised if Manzanar-style internment camps will be proposed. The US seems to never learn from its past. The Chinese Exclusion Act has never been ruled unconstitutional, and may likewise raise its ugly head with "Muslim" replacing "Chinese" in the wording.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

We do have many laws already limiting our freedoms solely for the purpose of law enforcement. These laws do leave one a little bitter but in the grand scheme of things they are a net positive.

Ex: Open alcohol container laws for motor vehicles. Certainly we would all agree that the presence of an open alcohol beverage does not imply with certainty that a driver is drinking in the vehicle. This law is simply a compromise against our freedoms that we accept for the good of society. The licensing of remote control aircraft is also likely similar.

rconner

To me it is amazing the number of people who don't get that an individual OR a corporation is always at base a self interested party. As a society we expect some social sharing from individuals whether or not they actually comply, but corporations are by nature evil satanic beasts who seek only to feed off resources and grow themselves for their investors. Wait... Before the beatings begin I recognize that they help organize society and provide efficiency of production and quality of life. But these have become byproducts of their main purpose which is why I label them so.

My definition: That which seeks to divide life against itself is evil and that which encourages cooperation is the good.

I have heard there was a time when corporations had some social consciousness but that was before my time here and certainly it isn't true today. Why do I say so... Well we had this phase where capitalism became a religion and an end to be sought after without other regards. That phase solidified the destructive aspect of capitalism into mainstream acceptance.

Rant off:

I just marvel at people who want less government without thinking about what that would really entail. I know several who fantasize about a tiny government and they imagine their guns or special skills or common intelligence would let them prosper in that environment while most others die off. I never point out the fallacy to them because of how embarrassing and silly they would have to feel after.

Summary of this rant= As long as we have society we will have government and as long as society grows more dense WILL have more government and MORE intrusions on what we can do.

You can believe me or not but don't forget it is inevitable.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I think history has shown pretty clearly that lack of laws or lack of enforcement results in a myriad of bad situations from pure anarchy to a multitude of different types of dictatorships.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

There's a reason Theodore Roosevelt had to start the EPA. It wasn't because the free market was doing a good job at taking care of our natural resources.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

If someone else wants to risk death by not wearing seat belts, I would probably accept that as natural selection, as long as there is no added cost to society. An instant fatality does not cost much, but someone on life support does impact insurance rates and access hospital resources and possibly loss of productivity. I don't see seat belt laws as protecting idiots from being stupid, but more of protecting the rest of us from the consequences of their stupid actions.

The recent news about smog in Beijing is a perfect example of where lack of government control has resulted in loss of health and loss of livelihoods for the general populace because the "few" have profited from not protecting the environment. So, yes, these will all result in loss of freedom, but that's the price of protecting us from those that would rather extract every iota of profit by not protecting the environment.

The unfortunate thing about climate change is that it's not instantaneous. If it were to happen on the timescale of BP oil spill there would hardly be any argument. The question then is whether there's any real way to recover. The BP oil spill, which was highly localized, still has ramifications on the environment, after billions spent on cleanup and restitution

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
I would like to steer us back to the topic of climate change science. ornerynorsk you stated:

Quote (ornerynorsk)

[Anthropogenic] causation has not been proven corrollary to warming. It just hasn't.
Despite your protests, jhardy1’s response to this statement was appropriate. He likened this blind rejection of science with other blind rejections of science. If you want to distances your position from that of other science rejectionists, then you must support your viewpoint. You cannot just say the science is wrong, you have to demonstrate why. The quality of your evidence to support your viewpoint that the science is wrong can then be weighed against the quality of evidence that supports the science.

Note that I have done the latter a few times in this thread (15 Dec 15 15:37 and, more substantially, 14 Oct 15 21:24) and others (see here at 5 Mar 14 18:24 for examples and references or here at 1 Apr 14 18:14). The multiple lines of evidence that point to anthropogenic CO2, the fact that observed changes align with the predictions from Arrhenius in 1896, the consistency with paleoclimate and the inability for any other competing theories to do anywhere close to as good a job of explaining current and past climate changes all adds weight to the anthropogenic CO2 theory. This is consistent with any other realm of science.

One of the major points in my post at 15 Dec 15 15:37 is that while a theory gaining support is very difficult, a theory losing support is very easy – all it takes is one conclusive paper. Despite the billion, if not trillion, dollar interest in finding such a flaw in the theory, none is present. This is most telling. I’ve spent most of my time here shooting down such attempts and showing why they are not conclusive at all (this post focuses on the two main ones, the “pause” and “models are wrong”). If you have another silver bullet, please present it. This is open to anyone (I just ask to do a little searching on past posts prior to make sure it hasn’t already been addressed).

You cannot just say the science hasn’t demonstrated the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and climate change, you must demonstrate why – especially when there is just so much evidence to the contrary.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

4
There is a teapot in orbit around the sun, between earth and mars. Prove me wrong.

You folks seem to be fixated on only CO2, and anthropogenic CO2, at that. What if it's not? Have the "what if's" of alternate causes been reasonably exhausted? I don't believe they have.

It sickens me when a narrow minded group of otherwise intelligent people are ready and eager to sell our collective souls lock, stock, and barrel to a cause that is built on such a loose foundation. Once you give something up to the powers-that-be, you do realize that you never get it back. It is bought back only through the warfare and blood of successive generations, if at all, and the number possessing a spine and a will to use to it falls with each generation.

"So, yes, these will all result in loss of freedom". And you will deserve every iota of that loss, sir. Big Brother awaits you, embrace him and offer willingly your final shred of self respect. There'd better be damned good evidence before we accept further surrender of the precious few liberties we have remaining.

Furthermore, why no discussion of the potential benefits of warming? Why all doom and gloom?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (ornerynorsk)

There is a teapot in orbit around the sun, between earth and mars. Prove me wrong.
Russell’s teapot demonstrates that it is impossible to either prove or disprove an epiphenomena (something with no observable physical effects) and highlights the absurdity of being asked to disprove them. Climate change is not epiphenomenal, it has physical and observable consequences. The anthropogenic CO2 theory is not an appeal to an epiphenomena as it is a theory of the physical mechanism behind climate change. It makes predictions that can be compared against observations. Therefore I’m not asking you to disprove a Russellian teapot, I’m asking you to provide evidence as to why you disagree with a physical theory. Given how obviously wrong it is to you, it should be very easy.

Either:
(1) Provide evidence to disprove the anthropogenic CO2 theory (and note I’ve already discussed a few) or,
(2) Provide evidence to support a counter theory (and note I’ve already discussed a few).

Quote (ornerynorsk)

a cause that is built on such a loose foundation.
See above. All I’m asking for is you to support statements such as this. If you cannot, then you have no rational basis for believing it. Russell would frown upon that.

Quote (ornerynorsk)

Furthermore, why no discussion of the potential benefits of warming? Why all doom and gloom?
The positive and negative physical consequences of global warming are discussed in AR5 WGII. Here’s the SPM. The reason why it sounds negative is because the aggregate is very negative, but it does discuss the positives as well. This appeal to the positives is simply another attempt to ignore the net impact (which is very negative).

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I may be incorrect, but I thought Nixon created the EPA.

As for green house gases, I think I read that water vapor was a stronger green house gas than CO2. And most power plants, even ones that don't burn FF's release water vapor.
Are we so sure that going after CO2 is the real issue? Has the level of water vapor in the sky increased over time?



RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

If it's so easy to lay the blame on something else, it should be trivial for Heartland to divert a few of its millions in funding from oil producers to pay some of these alleged money-grubbing scientists to scientifically prove, or at least, cast great doubt on the subject. Yet, there's dead air on the subject.

As for water vapor, see: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-clima...


TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor,
We need your educated eye on this report: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/1...
One of the conclusions...
"We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations."

Thanks

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

oh dear ! I'm not taking bets that he'll say "they're right". I'm sure it'll be a long and involved (and passing interesting) reply to say "no, the NOAA adjustments are correct, and these warmists are picking on a few odd looking (but correct) instances"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

A short thumbnail sketch of humanity in 2015 (~10,000 years after we crawled out from under the last ice sheets)

Fellow "scientists", we are a very fine group of humans in a very unique period of Earths existence. We can communicate now using electrons, we can use the Earths resources in ways no one has ever done. All of these capabilities in the last "few hundred years". As scientists we create forward thinking goods and services using our current level of education or what passes for "education".

We really don't know as much as we should. Our paradigm is a Human paradigm. The earth has a very different perspective on its' existence. We have learned of some of earths history, but we really need to know much more. It appears we are so forward focused, growth at all costs, that we are ignoring the teachings of earths history. But, give us time and we will slowly come to the realization that the human species is just a blip on the timeline of a very precious and unique planet out there. The water planet. We really should expect water to control us rather than we humans thinking we can control water, water vapour, ICE, and the temperatures that water likes to exist in.

We are enjoying a unique 12K year run of really - really good stable climate. It has likely never happened before if we can believe the Greenland ice core data. This period is over due for change, probably for the worse. Wild shifts in temperature are supposed to happen at various times, apparently it is normal for Earth. And ladies and gentlemen, this all happened before -- without humans even being in the picture.

Our task is to guide our fellow men to ride-out this approaching Ice-age with a degree of respect for humanity. It's coming for sure, but we don't know when or how fast it will come, but it will come. It is very difficult to work with this time frame, so I suppose this current Climate-change debate is to be expected. To say climate-change is natural, organic, and non-human fired is not popular right now, but we hope it will not stay that way, once we really have to scramble to save populations from its effects on our fragile existence here.

What have non-human life forms done to survive climate change? How have they survived the past 100K years and the many ice-ages that occupied that period. Living underwater and in caves seem like a history lesson, but we must stop acting like spoiled children and get on with inventing affordable ways to survive the next 10,000 years without turning into fossils. I do not think politicians should be making these decisions, instead, global humanity should be on the same page, with well educated scientist holding the book. The difficulty is getting a consensus in this electronic communications day and age.





RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

see George Carlin's "save the planet" sketch.

I can sort of see the intelligent designer (in whatever form you perceive him, non-gender specific, to be) scratching his (non-gender specific) head thinking ... "well that didn't work out the way I expected".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Seaaggie,

I’ve been instructed to not post on this topic anymore but seeing as your question was addressed to me, I’ll sneak in this comment to redirect you to a much better pair of eyes than mine. See Victor Venema’s blog post for a rundown.

Make sure to read the comments which contains a well-tempered (for a climate change blog comment section) discussion conversation between co-author Evan Jones and others. Well, there’s a few jabs thrown, especially at the beginning, but there’s a lot of very good points brought up to which Jones attempts to address (with a level of success that is no doubt dependant on your viewpoint going into it).

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

These graphs have been interesting to me. I have not done research on the entry at Wikipedia but I'm sure y'all have. How do these graphs relate to climate change? Geologic Temperature Record

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

The idea of controlling the earth's climate with something as simple as stopping human contribution to the carbon cycle is so small-minded that it is almost adorable. Please provide me with a list of all contributing sources of CO2, and quantify their contributions. If you only include the CO2 contributions of humans, you are not competent to discuss this subject. If you accomplish that feat, provide me with a accurate data on the speed of carbon cycle across the world. I am also going to need you to tell me what exactly IS the correct temperature for the earth to stay at indefinitely, and how we maintain that temperature across the globe even throughout the changes in our orbital cycle.

The earth's climate has changed drastically for its entire existence. Governments know that they can tap into this perpetual cycle of warming and cooling, turn the trends into fear stimuli, and associate them with whatever cause gains them the most power.






https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles...

"It is still uncertain where all the carbon dioxide came from and what the exact sequence of events was. Scientists have considered the drying up of large inland seas, volcanic activity, thawing permafrost, release of methane from warming ocean sediments, huge wildfires, and even—briefly—a comet.

Like nothing we’ve ever seen
Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/w...

To accomplish what the warm-mongorers want, we would need to constrain earth's orbit around the sun to be perfectly circular, avoid axial tilt at all costs, control atmospheric makeup to comply with government-approved quantities, seize control of ocean currents, and much much more.

Controlling, or even influencing our climate would require near omnipotence and omniscience. Coincidentally, omnipotence and omniscience are the holy grail of political pursuits.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

How is all of that relevant; the Earth's surface temperature was thousands of degrees 4.5 billion years ago. So what? That does not mean that we're not impacting the climate or the atmosphere. By your argument, we should likewise discount the KT extinction as a externally caused event for the same reason, but we know otherwise.

Your chart shows changes that are occurring on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. We're ostensibly seeing climate change in less than 1000 years, so by your data, this is a substantial outlier and is unprecedented.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Tracking temperature transients in the prehistoric record is tricky, but if you can accept HADCET as a proxy you'll see that the rise and plateau trajectory since 1880 is unexceptional in rate and amplitude, since similar rises have been seen before 1880. If such events occur two or more times in 400 years it seems unlikely to me that the twentieth century one is something new.

However be aware that there is no robust method to break a signal into straight line segments, the most reliable method is just to use a moving average. The averaging period of the ma will be a choice,perhaps the simplest method is to run your chosen analysis across all possible options from say eleven years to 101,any less is weather,any more leaves you with too few independent data points.

Using that you might use the population of 11 year ma to define rate,and perhaps 51 year to establish amplitude. Or you could do some funky wavelet analysis. Then see if the post 1850-1880 figures are outliers.

One thing to watch for is the possible AMO supercycle, over the course of decades the big gradients are probably due to that more than trivial amounts of relatively insignificant greenhouse gases.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

IRstuff, those are smoothed trend lines. Not only that, this thread is about the "pause". So are you suggesting that this "pause" is unprecedented? Is this pause concerning you? Please research the cause for the little ice age. If you are using the past 1000 years as the basis for what governments should forcefully mandate as the correct temperature for earth, you should at LEAST understand the factors within that pathetically small sample of time. Alarmists are making the claims. Alarmists are aligning with the claims to be used as basis for destructive changes to our societal structure. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on alarmists.

What I am suggesting is that the global warming alarmists have not sufficiently defined anything which is objectively a problem, let alone that is reasonably within our control. They cannot even begin to find root cause, and then actually find a practical solution to their claimed problem. It is possible that atmospheric carbon contents are not going to doom the world, and that they are actually quite necessary to life as we know it. I am also suggesting that we contribute very small amounts of atmospheric carbon, relative to the major sources of CO2. Acquaint yourself with the carbon cycle. Also consider the fact that our industries are much cleaner than they used to be. We do not need MORE regulation on them. There is a point of diminishing returns for these legislation. We have passed that point and are now to the point of destructive regulation. Innovations are quelled, government targets businesses in a manner to accommodate their political self interest and the interests of their biggest donors/lenders.

What the global warming alarmists fail to do sufficiently is define the problem, find their role in it, acquire the authority to do set regulations for the weather on earth, and even consider abstaining from ineffective solutions that are worse than the problem. This scared herd of alarmists has more destructive potential than anything that they plan to destroy in their mission to control the world's weather.

Refer to my signature and entertain me by taking one second to question these big claims that are perseverated throughout the media without supporting information other than regurgitated buzz words. Propaganda.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Refer to my signature and entertain me by taking one second to question these big claims that are perseverated throughout the media without supporting information other than regurgitated buzz words. Propaganda. "

Yes, point taken, you've described your position exactly.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

That's good. It is good to recognize destructive potential of legislations and think about the motives of those who are pushing for those legislations to be imposed on us.

I would like to ask you; what is the correct climate for our globe to have for the next billion years? What is the correct chemical makeup for our atmosphere to have? Are there any sacrifices that we should NOT make in the pursuit for Obama to control the weather on earth?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
GregLocock, I was surprised to not hear from you on the “pause” topic given how many times you’ve tried to use it as an argument to support your position. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially now that we have 2015 data, Cahill et al 2015, Foster and Abraham 2015, etc. Nevertheless, I’ll drop in a comment on some of your statements.

Re: “current changes are unexceptional in rate and amplitude” – Central England does not represent global temperatures. Variability is much higher the more local you get and that’s exactly what you see when you compare global temperature proxies with local temperatures. PAGES2K Consortium is perhaps the most robust set of paleoclimate data available, using multiple proxies and sources, and their paper (and full article) states:

Quote (PAGES 2K Consortium)

The 20th century ranked as the warmest or nearly the warmest century in all regions except Antarctica. During the last 30-year period in the reconstructions (1971-2000 CE), the average reconstructed temperature among all of the regions was likely higher than anytime in nearly 1400 years. However, some regions experienced 30-year intervals that were warmer than 1971-2000. In Europe, for example, the average temperature between 21 and 80 CE was warmer than during 1971-2000.

But beyond that solar activity has been in decline since ~1960 (not to mention the vast increase in anthropogenic aerosols) which should cause cooling. However, as we know, the planet has been warming (with 2015 surpassing 2014 as the hottest year on record, by a wide margin). So, even if the rate and extent of the warming is unexceptional on a global scale (which is untrue), it would still be exceptional because there’s no natural driver that appears to account for the warming. Those saying “it’s changed before therefore CO2 isn’t important” still need a physical mechanism to explain the current warming as well as explain why “it’s changed before”. Note that CO2 provides a consistent and explanatory narrative for both present and past climate changes.

Re: AMO supercycle – Please explain how ~30 year cyclical changes in ocean currents could cause the rise in temperature from 1900-present. Note that I’m in full agreement that it was likely partially responsible for some of 1920-1940 warming and 1940-1960 cooling, before a stronger warming single took over, but the long-term trend requires a non-cycling warming signal. Please explain how a ~30 year cyclical changes in ocean currents could cause a steady increase in ocean heat content from 1960 to present. AMO and PDO impact how heat moves around the system, they don’t contribute to net heat gain or heat loss significantly over long periods of time.

Well, I’m at at it, Panther140,
Re: “it’s changed before” – See 27 Oct 15 18:27, 28 Oct 15 22:03.

Re: “we contribute very small amounts of atmospheric carbon, relative to the major sources of CO2” – see here.

Re: “What the global warming alarmists fail to do sufficiently is define the problem” – see 14 Oct 15 21:24, 15 Dec 15 15:37, 17 Dec 15 17:55.

lacajun, re: geological temperatures - see here at 23 Oct 14 17:19.

Also, here's an exercise for all of you - try to provide of physical explanation of geological, paleo and present temperature variances if the planet is not sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Even if you can hypothesis a forcing that could cause (with the correct timeline and extent) the variations we see (past and present), call it Forcing X, it would almost certainly be due to the same physical mechanism and feedbacks which would make the planet sensitivity to CO2 concentrations (albedo, water vapour, etc.). So, if the planet was sensitive to your Forcing X, it would also be likely that the planet would be sensitive to CO2 (thus failing the exercise).

I dare say it's a near impossible task. However, an ECS of ~3K allows us to provide a consistent and powerful explanation of past and present changes.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"if the planet is not sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations" ... a valid exercise if CO2 is the only active agent. However, I suspect there are several; many I don't think we're aware of yet ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

". a valid exercise if CO2 is the only active agent. However, I suspect there are several; many I don't think we're aware of yet ..."

Based on what? And why is your "suspicion" valid against 60 yrs of modern climate science?

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I think it is ...
'cause most new research says this or that was stronger/weaker than we expected,
'cause how many climate models are there ? (different ones emphasise different features)
'cause new climate models are constantly being developed
'cause this is right and proper (as we study something we learn some answers and usually more questions)

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (rb1957)

a valid exercise if CO2 is the only active agent
How so? Firstly, CO2 is not the only “active agent” (I’m assuming that means driver/forcing). Solar activity, volcanic activity, orbital tilt and bolide impacts can all be drivers/forcings. So could some new forcing they’ve conceptualized. In fact, the opposite is true, the exercise is only valid if CO2 is NOT a major driver. Given how many believe that CO2 is not a major driver in climate change, this exercise is very valid for them.

The exercise is to describe a physical mechanism that accounts for the proper timeline and extent of geological, paleo and present variances in climate without CO2 being a significant forcing better than the current understanding using an ECS of ~2 to 4.5 K. However, remember that if CO2 sensitivity is low than so too are its positive feedbacks. So, your physical mechanism cannot rely on albedo, gas release or water vapour (which are all positive feedbacks of CO2, making CO2 sensitivity high).

As I said, I don’t think it can be done but this is the corner those that claim “sensitivity is low” have backed themselves into, not me. They are more than happy to say, correctly, “it’s changed before” but that makes it extremely difficult to explain those changes without a high CO2 sensitivity. But hey, “skeptics” are much smarter than the entire field of climate science, apparently, so I guess they should be able to solve this exercise.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Also, here's an exercise for all of you - try to provide of physical explanation of geological, paleo and present temperature variances if the planet is not sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Even if you can hypothesis a forcing that could cause (with the correct timeline and extent) the variations we see (past and present), call it Forcing X, it would almost certainly be due to the same physical mechanism and feedbacks which would make the planet sensitivity to CO2 concentrations (albedo, water vapour, etc.). So, if the planet was sensitive to your Forcing X, it would also be likely that the planet would be sensitive to CO2 (thus failing the exercise).

I dare say it's a near impossible task" - Rconnor

Are you familiar with the orbital mechanics of the earth relative to the sun and other planets? It actually winds up affecting our distance and axial tilt relative to the sun.

Also, you are relying on some data in which the raw measurements represent a small sample of our globe.

I would ask you to define what the correct eternal global climate is for me. What is the correct atmospheric chemistry to have for eternity? Are there any sacrifices that we should NOT make, as humans, in attempts to have governments control the weather?

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Re: AMO supercycle – Please explain how ~30 year cyclical changes in ocean currents could cause the rise in temperature from 1900-present. Note that I’m in full agreement that it was likely partially responsible for some of 1920-1940 warming and 1940-1960 cooling, before a stronger warming single took over, but the long-term trend requires a non-cycling warming signal. Please explain how a ~30 year cyclical changes in ocean currents could cause a steady increase in ocean heat content from 1960 to present. AMO and PDO impact how heat moves around the system, they don’t contribute to net heat gain or heat loss significantly over long periods of time." - rconnor

A 100 year sample is sufficient to draw conclusions on global climate trends?
The mini ice age ended just before 1900. Then it got warmer. This surprises you? Please hold while I go smash a less expensive computer screen! haha

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I hate it when people come to the discussion very late and read the first post and then jump to the end, but for personal reasons I have to be one of those people. I apologize.

RCONNER,
Your basic question is fatuous. This pre-historic data has a time sensitivity of +/-200 years at best (and there are many who find that the assumption of a constant mix of carbon isotopes in the air over geologic time is no better than +/-1000 years). The hypotheses that CO2 changes lag temperature change by up to 200 years is exactly as credible as the hypotheses that CO2 causes temperature changes. As always I have a huge problem with people not honoring the uncertainty in the data. If I have a mercury thermometer with markings every 10C that was only calibrated at one point then reading it to whole degrees is impossible (with repeatable accuracy), reporting it to two or three decimal places is irresponsible. If I have temporal data that I have confidence is +/-200 years, then attributing a cause/effect relationship of 1-2 years is simply creative writing. The data supports an infinite number of cause/effect pairs.

I read the NOAA report and find it interesting that there are 12,000 ground stations in the world, but NOAA only finds 1,237 of them to be "high quality". A person could easily interpret "high quality" to mean "the data fits the narrative" and nothing in the report would refute that. When NOAA justifies ignoring 90% of the weather stations and all of the weather balloon data and all of the satellite data, their justifications sound very high-minded and scientific (they do write purty), but they still flat out ignored 99%+ of the available data to reach their conclusion. Some would call that "cherry picking", but I couldn't possibly. I take the NOAA "hottest ever" claim as politics masquerading as science.

Quote (RConner)

there’s no natural driver that appears to account for the warming
is an interesting statement. I would take that fact as an indication that there could easily be something that I haven't considered. You take the absence of other causes that you accept as validation of your hypotheses. Sorry, but the absence of alternative hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis on the table.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (Panther140)

Are you familiar with the orbital mechanics of the earth relative to the sun and other planets?
Yes, I am. In fact, I discussed Milankovitch cycles in both of the posts that I directed you to read. Please see 27 Oct 15 18:27 and 28 Oct 15 22:03. For a much more detailed review of Milankovitch cycles, see here at 22 Apr 15 21:28.

Milankovitch/orbital cycles require large carbon feedbacks to drive the majority of the extent of interglacial warming. So if your mechanism is orbital cycles, you're agreeing with the current scientific understanding and with high CO2 sensitivity. If CO2 sensitivity is low, there’s no way to explain the extent of the change in temperatures. So, you’re doing a better job proving my point than yours.

Quote (Panther140)

Also, you are relying on some data in which the raw measurements represent a small sample of our globe
PAGES 2K is a much better representation of the global than HadCET (central England only). It is the combination of a number of proxies from different sources from different locations. See here. This is why I feel PAGES 2K is the best paleoclimate temperature reconstruction.

But let’s bounce this question back to you. If you want to claim “it’s changed before”, what data set are you relying on?

Quote (Panther140)

I would ask you to define what the correct eternal global climate is for me.
Climate has changed and will always change. There will never be an “eternal global climate”. However, the rate of past major climate change is much slower than the current rate of change. For example, the last interglacial period warmed the planet by ~5 deg C over a period of ~15,000 years (Shakun et al 2012). That’s 0.03 deg C per century. Furthermore, the next phase of the orbital cycle will be a cooling phase (we are already at the crest of the warming phase) and isn’t expected to kick in for another 50,000 to 100,000 years (Berger and Loutre 2002, Hollan 2000).

Comparatively, we are hoping to stay below a 2 deg C rise before the end of the century (our current rate is about 1.7 deg C per century) due to anthropogenic climate change. From an adaptive standpoint, that makes anthropogenic climate change much, much more difficult to adapt to than natural climate change.

However, if I had to give an answer for what the “best” climate would be for us, it would be the climate which humans developed there civilizations in (it’s true for all animals – the best climate for them is the climate they developed in). For us, it’s the Holocene which has lasted for ~10,000 years. This stable crest of the last interglacial cycle is where all modern agricultural practice and civilizations developed in. We are destined to depart from the Holocene but the question is when and how rapidly.

As stated, if it weren’t for anthropogenic actions, we’d likely begin to cool at glacial rates (literally not figuratively) starting around the next 50,000 to 100,000 years. However, due to anthropogenic actions, we’ve now entered an climatic era called the Anthropocene, where climate is changing orders of magnitude faster than they would during natural orbital cycle driven change.

Quote (Panther140)

A 100 year sample is sufficient to draw conclusions on global climate trends?
Yes. 1 deg C rise in 100 years demands an explanation. Nature doesn’t do shifts like that outside of massive volcanic eruptions or asteroids, neither of which have occured.

Quote (Panther140)

The mini ice age ended just before 1900. Then it got warmer. This surprises you?
When nature starts gradually cooling from an (Milankovitch cycle) thermal optimum and then rapidly shots up 1 deg C in 100 years, yes, it surprises me. It surprises anyone that knows the first bit about paleoclimatology. Here’s an image of PAGES 2K (green) compared with another paper Marcott et al 2013 (blue) and instrumental data (red) (note for those with “hockey stick” syndrome: 360 of the 511 records used in PAGES 2K were not used in Mann et al 2008 or 2009 and Mann is not an author of PAGES 2K):

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
zdas04, no worries. I understand you were taking a break from the discussion.

Quote (zdas04)

The hypotheses that CO2 changes lag temperature change by up to 200 years is exactly as credible as the hypotheses that CO2 causes temperature changes.
It’s important to understand that historically, CO2 has never been a driver of climate change. CO2 levels don’t magically change, they require some other forcing to change their concentration. Milankovitch cycles are the most typical driver in glacial-interglacial periods. While insolation changes are a rather weak forcing, they lead to a series of feedbacks which leads to a release of CO2. CO2 then causes the majority of the extent of the change (see here at 22 Apr 15 21:28). So CO2 both (initially) lags and (later) leads temperature rise. I’m sure you’ll recall our discussion on Shakun et al 2012.

But let’s step back for a second to my exercise. Let’s assume that CO2 always lags temperature rise and is in no way responsible for the temperature rise. With low CO2 sensitivity, how do we explain how Milankovitch cycles could cause large temperature variances?

Insolation changes caused by angular tilt melt ice at the poles, decreasing albedo.
Thermohaline circulation is interrupted.
The NH equator to pole heat transport weakens
SH warms as a results, releasing large reservoirs of CO2 (this, for the example, doesn’t matter)
CH4 and albedo feedbacks continue to warm.

So, in the absence of high CO2 sensitivity, Milankovitch cycle-driven climate change must be due, solely, to albedo and CH4 feedbacks and not CO2. So given the same rise in temperature, if we remove the impact of CO2, then albedo and CH4 feedbacks should be greater than expected. However, as albedo and CH4 feedbacks are also feedbacks of increased CO2, then CO2 sensitivity must still be high. Thus, we fail the exercise. Darn!

As I said, those that claim “it’s changed before” and “climate sensitivity is low” have a really hard to explain how that’s the case.

Quote (zdas04)

A person could easily interpret "high quality" to mean "the data fits the narrative"
Misinterpreting a statement and failing to do follow up research does not provide a solid foundation to make such wild assertions.

Quote (zdas04)

When NOAA justifies ignoring 90% of the weather stations and all of the weather balloon data and all of the satellite data
See the NOAA/NASA joint presentation on 2015 temperature data. Note the discussion on satellite data.

Regarding balloon data, see the comparison between RATPAC and RSS. Balloon data is in disagreement with satellite data and in agreement with surface temperature data.


We could listen to the lead scientist from RSS, Carl Mears:

Quote (Carl Mears)

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset

Quote (zdas04)

You take the absence of other causes that you accept as validation of your hypotheses
Please don’t attribute views to me that I have never held. While I do not believe there is a valid counter-theory (and have open the door, repeatedly, for anyone to provide one), it is not the reason I accept the anthropogenic CO2 theory. The reason I accept the anthropogenic CO2 theory is because of its explanatory power with regards to paleoclimatology and present climate change and the accuracy of the predictions of Arrhenius and Tyndall made at the end of the 19th century. Please see my post at 14 Oct 15 21:24 and/or 15 Dec 15 15:37 for an outline.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

what an amazing quote from the lead scientist involved in the project ... forget that our data has tracked extremely well with other data for 30 years, over the recent years we are tracking lower, so our data must have a gremlin in it ?

and why is it referred to as an "anomaly" ? "all" that's being plotted is the temperature difference to a datum (1954? in this case) "anomaly" carries with it a lot of negative baggage ... what is "normal" that this is "exceptional", "peculiar", "deviated from the normal" ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

This thread illustrates the key problems I have with this entire alarmist movement.

I have seen nothing conclusive that indicates abnormal warming. You can pick a climate model that fits ANY pre-conceived conclusion, and then justify it with some theoretical perspective.

I do not see how a scientifically literate person would conclude that our recent climate trends are unnatural.

Despite this, we have people who are adamantly claiming to have figured out the root cause for this "problem" that their favorite climate model depicts.

I'm disappointed that there are engineers who have actually bought into this shit. I'm also shocked at how poorly this data is being analyzed. You are comparing satelite data to ground data that doesn't jive. Then you are comparing it to inferred climate data from fossils. THEN people see a .4C rise in certain climate models, fixate on those, ignore data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and have the nerve to tell US how the world shall be ran.

The fact that this idiocy is being used by our worlds one government to dictate us is a good example of why so many people are getting stocked up on 5 generations worth of tactical firearms and ammunition.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Our society is being destroyed by 1000 instances of these excuses to undermine the basis for our first-world way of life.

Murder rates have been dropping drastically for 20 years, yet liberals claim we have a problem that we need to solve by removing the most basic human rights from people.

Climate has not changed in 20 years, polar ice is seeing record growth, all predictions by global warming alarmists from the past have failed to become true. BUT they are still using "climate change" as an excuse to destroy as many industries as possible, or at least destroy the smaller competition that collectively takes up market share.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

You have cherry-picked data from an array of non demonstrable data to support your belief. THEN you used a correlation to derive causality of that problem, which has a highly debatable existence in the first place. You have fixated on one variable in a system which has a nearly unintelligible matrix of variables. You have gone out of your way to downplay any and all data that contradicts your conclusion. You then said that skepticism of your belief is non-scientific. After breaking nearly every single fundamental rule of the scientific method, I can't believe you have the nerve to declare that the skeptics are not having a scientific discussion. Being complacent with another person's conclusion is the antithesis of scientific discussion.

This thread was not a scientific discussion. This was a sermon in which you did the exact opposite of science, and accused the opposition of blasphemy.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (Panther140)

I have seen nothing conclusive that indicates abnormal warming.
While I certainly not expect anything that I've said to convince you otherwise, you've seemed to not have even read anything I've said (nor have you addressed any of my questions, despite me addressing all of yours). Here's another example, on top of what I discussed above, the Permian Event:

Quote (rconnor)

the Permian event, the one that killed off 96% of all species on the planet, involved an 8 deg C rise in temperatures and CO2 concentrations to rise to 2000 ppm, which occurred over a period of 60,000 years (source). To put this in perspective, RCP8.5 (which is close to the “do nothing” option) projects a temperature rise of 4.31 deg C above pre-industrial (1850-1900 average) or 3.7 deg C above the 1986-2005 average by 2100 and projects CO2 concentrations will reach 2000 ppm by 2250 (source). Now, I’m not saying that every and all of the 96% of lost species during the Permian event were caused by global warming alone, as numerous other factors likely played into some of the extinctions [Note: ocean acidification, which is also a product of anthropogenic climate change, caused many of the extinctions.]. But the repeated relationship between changes in CO2 and changes in temperature and changes in temperature and extinctions demonstrates that rapid changes in climate result in extinctions (1, 2). I'm also not saying the “Anthropocean event” will result in the loss of 96% of all species but it will cause a significant disruption to the biosphere that will result in some level of mass extinction.

...Beyond the fact that past mass extinctions are tied to temperatures and CO2 concentrations (both cooling/lowering and warming/rising), the rate of temperature change during past mass extinction events is orders of magnitude slower than current changes. To claim that “it won’t be bad” (it meaning warming rates >1.5 deg C/century) is completely contradicted by the fact that past periods of geological rapid warming (of <0.05 deg C per century) have lead to massively negative consequences in the biosphere. While “It won’t be bad” and “it’s changed before” are both common “skeptic” arguments against mitigation, the former is completely negated by the latter and the latter negates the argument it was trying to support.

Quote (Panther140)

I do not see how a scientifically literate person would conclude that our recent climate trends are unnatural.
Please offer a scientifically literate explanation of how it COULD be natural. This is the point of my exercise. Your attempted answer was "orbital cycles", which supports (and is an integral part of) the CO2 theory. Beyond that, orbital cycles cannot explain the rate nor the extent nor the timing of the current warming.

Quote (Panther140)

I'm disappointed that there are engineers who have actually bought into this...
One of us is offering evidence, data and a consistent scientific narrative to explain a physical observation. The other is not. Furthermore, as I've described numerous times, climate change is really a risk assessment exercise. The manner in which some here are conducting this risk assessment exercise is troubling. See 30 Sep 15 23:07, 27 Oct 15 18:27, *29 Oct 15 21:19* (probably the most thorough), 3 Dec 15 21:42, 9 Dec 15 20:52, 15 Dec 15 15:37.

Quote (Panther140)

Climate has not changed in 20 years, polar ice is seeing record growth, all predictions by global warming alarmists from the past have failed to become true
I'm sorry but everything in this sentence is wrong. Climate has continued over the last 20 years, see Part 1 (the second post of the thread). Polar ice is shrinking (Antarctic ice is increasing, which is expected, but Arctic ice is reducing (here). Antarctic net land ice is also decreasing. The aggregate is a large reduction.). And nearly every prediction of anthropogenic climate change is in agreement with observations (see here at 5 March 14 18:24 and here for examples).

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
"You have cherry-picked data from an array of non demonstrable data to support your belief." - Examples of data that I've ignored? Should I list all the data that you've ignored? (OHC, land ice, sea level,...)

"THEN you used a correlation to derive causality of that problem, which has a highly debatable existence in the first place." - Incorrect. The physics behind CO2 greenhouse effect, established in the 19th century, demonstrates the causality. Please read my post at 14 Oct 15 21:24.

"You have fixated on one variable in a system which has a nearly unintelligible matrix of variables." - Incorrect. Climate change science incorporates all the other variables (solar, volcanic, albedo, land use, orbital cycles, clouds,..., AND CO2) to describe current and past changes. Your problem is you want to ignore CO2 but then the explanatory power disappears. Again, you need to address my exercise.

"You have gone out of your way to downplay any and all data that contradicts your conclusion." - I'm assuming you're referring to satellite data. I have explained why arguments that say "satellite data is king, ground based data is trash" are misguided. See my opening post, I say that I don't think satellite data is inherently wrong, it's just not a good metric as we don't live 5 km above the surface and it's not a good metric to discuss 15 year trends, especially given it's sensitivity to ENSO states (i.e. starting your analysis at the strongest El Nino on record might not be wise). Also, have you seen January UAH data? Looks like, as expected, the El Nino is starting to show in satellite data.

"Being complacent with another person's conclusion is the antithesis of scientific discussion." - Do you not see the irony of this statement? While you may feel it applies to me (and it might to an extent), it certainly applies to you. You've read some "skeptic" blog, haven't bothered doing much follow up research and (implicitly, if not explicitly) proclaim the entirety of the climate science community, all scientific journals (that deal with climate science), nearly every national academy of science are wrong (and unscientific). Especially given the absence of supporting evidence you've brought forth to support your assertions (and, even more so, in comparison to the amount of supporting evidence I've brought forth).

"This thread was not a scientific discussion." - Agreed. People keep bringing politics into the discussion and making comparisons to religious belief. While others are trying to discuss scientific evidence. It's too bad.

I'm sure you agree with me, Panther140, you cannot have a scientific discussion without using scientific evidence, papers or data to defend your points. So, please, let's start supporting our points with scientific evidence, papers or data.

And, please, don't make the discussion about me. Make it about the evidence that I bring forward (or don't bring forward) by bringing forward your own counter-evidence (not counter-assertions).

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Panther,

Where is your supporting data? Can you at least point to a peer-reviewed publication of any sort to back up you claims? Your claim that nothing has changed in the last 20 years is simply blatant misrepresentation since 16 of the those 20 years were the hottest years of the last 135. So yeah, nothing changed, other than they being hotter than all the rest: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 So, who's ignoring data that doesn't fit their theory?

And no, it's not random.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/g...

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Why do you only use data that begins where the little ice age ended?

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

You actually reinforced my claim that you are cherry picking climate models and ignoring the events before that period of time.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Panther140, how is it cherry picking when he was responding to your comment about the "Climate has not changed in 20 years" (which itself is a cherry picked period...)? He clearly disproved that (as have I). To then shift the conversation to the little ice age (which I have already addressed) is your mistake, not his.

Regarding your little ice age claim, see the PAGES 2K reconstruction above (or here).

How about instead of jumping from point to point, you actually address the evidence we've brought forward. Your little game of whack-a-mole is getting tiresome.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Pages 2k shows our current temp to have returned to pre ice age levels.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
From the abstract of the PAGES 2K paper: "during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years." So no, we haven't "returned to pre [mini] ice age levels", we've surpassed them at an exceptional rate. And note that we are now much warmer than the 1971-2000 period.

We currently are sitting near a solar minimum similar to the little ice age but have warmed at a rate order of magnitude faster than the last interglacial period. That ain't natural.

Also, using a paper from Michael Mann to support your position that climate change is natural is rather humorous.

But, again, if you want to assert that "it's natural" then explain to us how "it's changed before" if "climate sensitivity is low"? You tried orbital cycles but they require a strong sensitivity to CO2 release to account for past changes. Even, as described to zdas04, you pretend the CO2 release didn't matter, then you are putting more weight on albedo and CH4 feedbacks, both of which are feedbacks of CO2 forcing (meaning CO2 sensitivity is high).

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor, on January 7th you said

Quote:

I’ve been instructed to not post on this topic anymore...

Has something changed in this regard, or have you simply decided to ignore the instructions from site management?

Maui

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Maui,

GregLocock’s appearance in this thread was interesting to me and I wanted to get his opinion. Then, as this is my thread, I felt a little custodial duty to address some other comments. I am not starting any new threads nor will I comment in new threads. So not to worry Maui, you’ll soon be free to discuss this topic without my involvement.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Even though so many people have made up there minds, I do enjoy the discussion, and tangents that have happened because of this topic.

Like many people I never expected to change any ones minds, But at the risk of learning something we did not know, or had not looked into, the discussion was great.

Sadly it did get a little over heated at times, and I don't believe it was ever intended to madden anyone.

Thank you for engaging.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years"

Which makes sense, because the medieval warm period was waning "nearly" 1400 years ago, and then was followed by the mini ice age roughly 1000 years ago.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Your article assumes that 1,400 years is some sort of representative sample of how climate on earth should be

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Your article assumes that 1,400 years is some sort of representative sample of how climate on earth should be"
And why not? Is there a doubt in your mind that we want the temperature to be more than a few degrees away from what the last 2 millenia has had? We're in that Goldilocks regime of "just about right," so it certainly makes sense to try and keep it that way, particularly if we're having an impact that will cause this environment to grossly diverge.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

Goldilocks huh?!? Call me a bourgeois reactionary, but I would hope that we know the point of criticality just a little better than "meh, seems about right" if billions, and perhaps trillions are going to be spent mitigating this boogeyman.

All in good fun, no offense to you, IRstuff! Like Cranky said, it's been a good discussion, and educational. I believe that anything that stops short of physical combat is of intellectual benefit. The exchange of ideas is fundamental to who we are and the advancement of our civilization. If we all agreed all of the time, what a dull and stagnant place it would be. Who is to say what element of a debate or discussion will spark something revolutionary in the mind of another?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@Panther140:

You said:
Your article assumes that 1,400 years is some sort of representative sample of how climate on earth should be

"Should be" is a loaded term - it implies that there is a single "right" climate for the Earth. As has been repeatedly stated, the Earth's climate continually changes through natural non-biological causes (eg orbital dynamics, solar radiance), natural biological causes (we only have an oxygen-laden atmosphere because of the natural evolution of first microbial life-forms, and then plant life, over billions of years), and artificial causes (CO2 emissions, land use change, etc). The question is the rate and magnitude of the change.

Some of the causes of climate changes are cyclic (eg the correlation of Ice Ages with orbital dynamics) while others trend in one direction, some are gradual (eg natural rise and fall of CO2 / O2), some are sudden or even cataclysmic (major volcanic activity or asteroid strike - fortunately, these events are infrequent!), some are short-lived, and others are long-term, some are very minor and others have major consequences for life on Earth (major changes in global temperature / rainfall will have dramatic impacts on habitable areas, viability of agriculture, etc). All of them are inter-related, some interactions have positive feedback loops, others have negative feedback.

All of the evidence indicates that anthropogenic climate change is rapid (not quite as fast as change due to asteroid strike, but orders of magnitude faster than most of the non-cataclysmic natural changes), wide-spread (i.e. global), and significant (several degrees warming over a time-scale of decades to a couple of centuries). Ignoring cataclysmic events (such as the asteroid strike which took out the dinosaurs), the natural cycles tend to take some millennia to achieve the same magnitude of change.

Humanity and civilisation evolved with the climate pretty much as it has been over the last few millennia, so that is arguably "how climate on earth should be" (for the good of mankind). It seems obvious to me that to allow an artificial change process to occur which is orders of magnitude faster than the natural cycles which we have evolved / adapted to live with is NOT "how climate on earth should be"!

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
Panther140,

The medieval warming period is centered around ~950 CE to 1200 CE, so I’m not sure what you are talking about. The 1400 year period completely encapsulates the Medieval Warm Period. Beyond that, you’ve failed to read the abstract of the PAGES 2K paper that clearly states: “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period”. Furthermore, you’ve failed to acknowledge the fact that the last 30 year period has been much warmer than 1971 to 2000 and the rate of warming completely outpaces that of the Medieval Warm Period, all during a period of decreasing solar activity.

Regarding a bigger picture, see Shakun et al 2012 for a longer timeline (graphical results here). You can connect PAGES 2K onto the end of Shakun et al 2012 and then instrumental data onto the end of PAGES 2K for a big picture. Some call it the “wheel chair” graph, where the last interglacial period is the wheel, the Holocene is the seat and modern temperatures represent the steep back.

As I said, the “right” climate for any organism is the temperature in which it developed. Departures from that are problematic. Rapid departures are even worse. So the “right” climate for humans is the period in which modern civilizations developed – the ~10,000 year period of relatively stable climate called the Holocene. So IRstuff’s “just about right” statement is an inversion of adaptionist thinking. It's not that the climate is "just about right" for our civilizations, our civilizations have been built to be "just about right" for the climate. The same goes for the biosphere - it's evolved to be "just about right" for the climate.

But in a 100 year span the planet has warmed 1 deg C (and ~0.75 deg C since 1950). Compare that to 8 deg C warming over 60,000 years during the Permian mass extinction event or the 3.5 deg C warming over ~10,000 years during the last interglacial period (both of which were driven by increases in atmospheric CO2, by the way).

To claim that it “climate sensitivity is low” or “it won’t be bad” works against the fact “it’s changed before”. When “it’s changed before” it’s usually because of changes in CO2 and past changes (that are orders of magnitude slower than changes today) led to drastic changes to the biosphere and topology of the planet.

As I said before, “it’s changed before” is a really, really bad argument against climate change mitigation and a very strong argument in support of climate change mitigation. The reason you (and others) keep trying to use it as an argument against climate change mitigation demonstrates a lack of understanding on the subject.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

3
Seems to me that we're getting hung up on a blame game, which is mostly irrelevant. As I see it, there are 3 basic questions:

> Is the climate changing -- Yes. There are only a few head-in-the-sand people who still refuse to accept that
> Did humans cause this -- Who cares? The issue is really the 3rd question:
> Can we do anything about it -- For sure. Merely 40 years ago, we were concerned about unleashing a nuclear war that would lead to a nuclear winter. If that's not anthropogenic climate change, someone needs to get a better dictionary.

So, it's pretty clear then. When we get to that point of no return, we set off about 300 or so Hiroshima-level firestorms, which should drastically drop global temperatures. So, be happy, don't worry...

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I agree with IRstuff, and wonder why we are looking at over the top economic measures. I guess we could call these measures economic cooling, or economic change.

If you want to do something then propose something that is more economic neutral, and it will be more widely accepted.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I agree with cranky108. You don't need to cut down business. Plant trees.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Plant trees."

And then bury them, and plant more...

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I'll entertain the opposition for a minute and help you reach a non-destructive non-intrusive solution to your alleged problem.

Privately owned biofuel farms. Not publically traded. Not government organizations.

Syngas is net carbon zero. You can make syngas out of anything carbon based. Old cheeseburger? Throw it in the syngassifier. Used TP? same. Grass clippings? Dead tree you found in the road = Gas for months.

The question is a matter of how to sustainably grow vegetation to accommodate running purely off of carbon-zero syngas. I think we could accomplish this massive amount of plant life with some sort of.. Dare I say... GREENHOUSE effect. Imagine the mass amounts of plants we could have if the globe were a greenhouse. No more world hunger. No more homeless people freezing to death. Sounds like a liberal's utopia.

Back on subject. I am mainly interested in syngas because I could keep my fuel supply chain extremely local no matter where I go. I really don't like relying so heavily on the supply chain of the oil industry. Its discomforting to rely on such a volatile industry for the basis of our economy.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Imagine the mass amounts of plants we could have if the globe were a greenhouse. No more world hunger."

Sure, we can imagine anything, even warp drive to escape to another planet or solar system. If the entire planet were all at the same temperature, and that temperature is warmish, then we'd have all of our coastal cities under water. Ignoring that, the lesson from our ongoing experiment in ethanol has demonstrated that market forces will drive up the cost of any plants that are used for fuel instead of food. If you think that the "market" will solve all those issues, that's even more unbelievable than AGW, by far, and that, we have 4000 years of recorded history to back that up. According to http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-u... the US uses 51% of its land area for agriculture already.

Ethanol production currently uses 3552 million bushels of corn annually.

The US uses 20 million barrels of oil per day. When that energy content is converted to bushels of corn, we get 19702 million bushels of equivalent of corn PER DAY. So, we would need to harvest about 2000 times the amount of corn we currently produce to completely replace all of the oil consumption we currently have.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I don't think syngas would be a 100% replacement for all of our fuels. I also don't think its wise to make a substantial amount of syngas and then rely on one single source. There is a lot of carbon-based waste that we currently make.

By the way, only 29% of the world is covered by land. Only a portion of that facilitates substantial growth year round, and the plants are only exposed to sunlight for a portion of those days..

You are the one who is most concerned with this alleged problem in the first place. I would think you would also be on the forefront of the solution, which I hope you don't believe to be lithium batteries and coal electricity!

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

" the US uses 51% of its land area for agriculture already."

I believe you misunderstood what they said. I believe they mean that 51% of developed land is used for agriculture.

A great deal of land can't be used for agriculture because of a lack of water. And of that 51% a good deal of it is used as pasture, which really isen't that much used.

I object to misquoting facts to prove a point.

Another issue is ethanol has proved to reduce smog in many cities, or we could go back to MTBF if you would like. The point here is the two news perspectives are both wrong.
Ethanol does make the air cleaner, even if it requires more fuel to produce it than it provides.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

MTBF= mean time between failures? Where are these studies, ethanol is cleaner than /what/ so far as smog goes? Smog is zapped by catalysts, I doubt they care overmuch whether the engine is supplied with partially burnt hydrocarbons (ethanol) or unburnt hydrocarbons (gasoline). Are you seriously claiming that ethanol burning cars are significantly cleaner than gasoline burning cars of the same recent vintage? I'd hazard a guess that most smog these days is not from new gasoline or ethanol cars at all.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
As I’ve said before, why discuss solutions with people that reject the problem in the first place? We did, however, have a brief discussion on it in this thread (see 30 Nov 15 18:23). (Interestingly followed by a conversation on “it’s changed before”…oh how the cycle of whack-a-mole spins)

Quote (Panther)

I'll entertain the opposition for a minute and help you reach a non-destructive non-intrusive solution to your alleged problem.
A rather good diversion away from your previous argument on why “it’s not us”. Given that you don’t know the date of the MWP, when it’s suppose to be central to your argument, it might be a smart strategy.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I believe Cranky was referring to MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) which is an oygenated additive for gasoline that was required by the EPA to reduce smog, but is now banned because it was soluble enough in water to cause ground water contamination problems

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

OK, my bad, percentage is only 18%, of which, only a small fraction is available for ethanol-related corn. But, that doesn't matter, because we'd need to grow hundreds of times more biomass to create sufficient syngas to replace our current oil consumption. So, unless we use less than 0.1% of arable land to grow anything at all, we don't have sufficient land area to make that work.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

IRstuff, its important to know that I said it wouldn't be a 100% replacement. You are also operating under the assumption that we would use traditional farming techniques and traditionally farmed plants in traditional locations.

Think in the gray area a little more.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

How is a factor of even, say, 100 anywhere in a "gray" area? To blithely say that just by thinking in a "gray" area we can get factors of 10 or 100 is just not realistic plan of action. Might as well say, "Miracle needed here." Why not think in the "gray" area for a 95% efficient solar cell? That would be a once every 20 year investment instead of a continual energy, fertilizer, and water consumption for biomass.


And even my original number was only for oil, which did not include coal, which is 800 million short tons.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

IRstuff, the point I was making is that we shouldn't be fixated on a single source to replace all of our energy sources.

Syngas is an attainable way to recycle carbon emissions, provide wildlife environment, and clean the air without wildly changing the fundamentals of our industry. That is what it does. The level of practicality decreases with scale. That is true for all forms of energy, which is why we don't rely on one single form of energy.

Solar panels have their place, but why put a solar panel in any environment where it prevents plant life?

There needs to be a matrix of sources that can be used optimally.


"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

I was not actually suggesting solar, because the actual efficiency is so poor. My point was that while it's easy to say, "think outside the box," getting a useful answer is extremely difficult, which is why the box is there in the first place. 95% efficient solar cells are essentially unobtainium, just like 100x improvement in crop yield, which would be the only way to get syngas and other alternatives of that type into a tolerably competitive price point.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

think fusion nuke

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)

Quote (Panther140)

I do not see how a scientifically literate person would conclude that our recent climate trends are unnatural.
Panther140, this was an extremely strong statement you made (as were many others you made).

You’ve provided no evidence to support the statement (besides a paper from Michael Mann, the poster boy for the antithetical position, and even that had nothing to do with your point). You’ve asserted that orbital cycles show that “it’s natural” when, in reality, orbital cycles are (1) already a requisite part of the CO2 theory, (2) demonstrate that CO2 sensitivity is high, (3) moreover, cannot be explained without high CO2 sensitivity and (4) cannot explain the current warming (neither the timing nor the rate). You’ve failed to demonstrate a scientific understanding of paleoclimatology (not knowing the date of the MWP certainly didn’t help with that). You’ve failed to describe how “it’s changed before” if CO2 sensitivity is low. You’ve certainly failed to support the quote above. In fact, our discussion begs the exact opposite question - how could one conclude that our recent climate trends are natural?

Now you appear to be slinking away from this position without addressing anything substantive. While this is certainly common in this discussion, I’d like to hold you to your original statement. As I’m bowing out of this topic, I want to make sure we conclude the conversation on “it’s changed before”. I don’t expect it to completely end it as an argument against mitigation (despite the fact it’s actually a strong argument for mitigation) but hopefully this can be used as a reference.

So, again, I’ll repeat the original exercise – please provide a physical explanation of geological, paleo and present temperature variances if the planet is not sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This certainly does not rest all on Panther140’s shoulders. Numerous posters (ex. GregLocock, zdas04, orenrynorsk) have played the “it’s changed before” card, none have stuck around to defend it. I’ll address any defenses of this position and then drift away from this conversation entirely.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
I’ll add that the criticism that “[I’m taking] the absence of other causes…as validation of [my] hypothesis” is untrue. It is the evidence that supports the CO2 theory that provides me with confidence that it is true. However, as I’m trying to highlight in the exercise, it is also the strength of the CO2 theory that makes counter-theories fail so quickly.

The explanatory power of the CO2 theory for geological, paleo and present temperature variances is incredibly strong. It starts from 19th century physics, confirmed by laboratory experiments, that the greenhouse effect increases temperatures by ~1 to 1.4 K per doubling of CO2 (here or here). This, alone, cannot explain the extent of past changes. Incorporating feedback effects, such as albedo changes, CH4 release (both of which are evident in past changes) and water vapour increase (which can be demonstrated by laboratory experiments), along with negative feedbacks such as Planck feedback and lapse rate, you get a sensitivity of ~2.2 K to 4.8 K (source). This sensitivity range is required to, and does an excellent job at, explaining past and present climate change.

As CO2 sensitivity is largely dependent on positive feedbacks, if you want to say “sensitivity is low” then you are really saying “feedbacks are likely negligible or negative”. This becomes very difficult as albedo and water vapour feedbacks are pretty solid. This further supports the current CO2 theory and makes counter-theories that much more unlikely, as they cannot utilize the same feedbacks as CO2.

Take, for example, the claim that “orbital cycles are responsible for climate change and CO2 has no (or negligible) impact”. Paleoclimateology indicates that the first part is true; orbital cycles, indeed, appear to coincide with past climate changes. However, orbital cycles also coincide with large releases of CO2 (during warming periods) and reductions (during cooling periods) of CO2. This claim assumes that this is a negligible factor, in contrast to the current understanding which states that while CO2 didn’t initiate the warming, it was responsible for the majority of the extent of the warming. So, ignoring the impact of CO2 but given the same temperature rise, we’d need to put more weight on the impact of albedo, CH4 and water vapour feedbacks of the insolation changes. However, as these feedbacks are the same as CO2 feedbacks, we’ve inadvertently demonstrated that CO2 sensitivity is, in fact, high. Thus, we’ve proved the opposite of our original claim. (Note: we needn’t even mention that orbital cycles cannot explain the timing nor the rate of current warming)

Cloud feedback has perhaps the largest uncertainty. Present observations indicate that it is likely small but positive (Clement et al 2009, Lauer et al 2010, Dessler 2010 and Sherwood et al 2014). Furthermore, if asserting a strong negative cloud feedback, then that person needs to explain how this feedback did not dampen past climate changes. Again, “it’s changed before” works against the claim “sensitivity is low”.

Furthermore, “it’s changed before” demonstrates that past climate changes (which were orders of magnitude slower than present changes) had an significant impact on the biosphere and topology of the planet. Past warming periods are linked with most of the major mass extinction events in Earth’s history (Jourdan et al 2014, Burgess et al 2014). So “it’s changed before” works against the claim “it won’t be bad” and “sensitivity is low”. Frankly, the fact that many do not understand that these are mutually exclusive arguments is telling.

So it’s not just that the explanatory power of the CO2 theory is so strong but also that counter-theories fail miserably at providing anything close to the explanatory power of the CO2 theory. In fact, most counter-theories (such as orbital cycles) end up supporting the CO2 theory rather than dismissing it. Thus, the fact “it’s changed before” (a bizarrely common “skeptic” argument) is perhaps the best evidence in support of mitigation measures and the strongest evidence against the “skeptic” position.

But it’s not just the agreement with Paleoclimate that add strengths to the CO2 theory and heaps more leg-work onto counter-theories. Many more recent observations align with predictions of CO2 warming. Here are a few:
  • Less heat exiting the atmosphere along wavelengths associated with CO2 – correct – solar activity would have no effect on this
  • Increased downward infrared radiation along wavelengths associated with CO2 – correct – solar activity cannot explain why it would increase under specific wavelengths
  • Nights warming faster than the day – correct – if it was solar activity, the opposite would be true
  • Cooling stratosphere, Warming surface – correct – if it was solar activity, both would be warming
  • Rising tropopause – correct – solar activity would not affect this
  • Cooling and contracting ionosphere – correct – solar activity would have the opposite effect
  • Temperatures warming in agreement with climate models – correct, correct, correct (see Part 2 at 7 Oct 15 22:02 for more details) – for reference to solar activity, see Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010 for the impact if (magically) we were stuck in a Grand Solar Minimum from now until 2100. (Hint: it’s very small)
  • Rising ocean heat content – correct (and how!) – The very rapid, very consistent rise in OHC dispels the argument that “ocean cycles are causing the warming”. Ocean cycles move heat around the system but they could not both cause a rise in atmospheric temperatures and a rise in OHC; that would violate the conservation of energy.
  • (The “skeptic’s” favourite) Tropospheric Hot Spots – weak, but growing, evidence (and here). As indicated in a 2006 report, which John Christy was a lead author, “It is likely that a net spurious cooling corrupts the area-averaged adjusted radiosonde data in the tropical troposphere, causing these data to indicate less warming than has actually occurred there”. The two recent papers (Po-Chedley et al 2014 and Sherwood and Nishant 2015) seem to further validate this statement. – Solar activity would also lead to hotspots, so if they were missing (and it looks increasingly like they are not) then that wouldn’t help the “it’s solar” argument either. It should also be added that tropospheric hotspots are an indication of the lapse rate feedback, a negative feedback. So missing tropospheric hotspots would work against the “climate sensitivity is low” argument. But worry not, the more data that comes in the more hotspots appear to be there.
What this list demonstrates is that the CO2 theory is, indeed, testable (and falsifiable). It makes predictions, we compare those predictions against observations, the predictions agree with observations. Outside of building a 2nd Earth, with all the interactive effects of ocean-atmospheric dynamics, ocean currents, prevailing wind patterns, etc., and the ability to speed up and isolate interacts, this is the best way to test the theory. This has been referred to as a “ragbag” list of observations and that I’ve “cherry-picked” predictions that were correct and “ignored” predictions that were incorrect. My question would be, what have I left out? Certainly nothing central to the CO2 theory. Furthermore, given the strong consilience of multiple, independent lines of evidence “skeptics” cannot simply cherry-pick one aspect (let’s say hotspots, even though, as stated above, that argument is slowly dying), ignore all other aspects (such as the rest of the list) and proclaim the theory dead. The strength of the theory requires a very strong, very robust argument to kill it. Not only have I not see a very strong, very robust argument against the theory, I haven’t seen a kinda-strong, remotely valid argument. Where accurate, “skeptic” arguments are very weak (such as “there’s still uncertainty”) and where strong, “skeptic” arguments are inaccurate (such as “sensitivity is low”).

[Edit: Added list of observations to further emphasize the consilience of the CO2 theory. Feel free to use this as a fairly good (but certainly not complete) overview on why the CO2 theory is so strong.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

"Take, for example, the claim that “orbital cycles are responsible for climate change and CO2 has no (or negligible) impact”. Paleoclimateology indicates that the first part is true; orbital cycles, indeed, appear to coincide with past climate changes. However, orbital cycles also coincide with large releases of CO2 (during warming periods) and reductions (during cooling periods) of CO2."

I have actually linked CO2 and temperature together quite clearly.

I don't have the patience or the crayons to explain this causal relationship to you today. This should help get you started. http://www.chem4kids.com/files/react_catalyst.html

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

(OP)
The only place I see that you’ve “linked CO2 and temperature together quite clearly” is by saying “it’s orbital cycles”. I agree, indeed orbital cycles demonstrates that CO2 drives temperature. But I’m guessing this isn’t what you are getting at.

I patiently await your nobel-prize worthy revolution to atmospheric chemistry and/or radiative physics. Make sure to enlighten me on how this Kuhnian level scientific revolution is consistent with paleoclimate and present climate change.

(and note I’ve added some more information to my last post. However, given your tendency to pick one line to comment on, and ignore the rest, it likely won’t impact your response much)

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

@Panther140-

Crop-dependent processes do NOT yield wildlife environments. They are fueled by monocrop landscape that is contrary to actual natural wildlife environments. Think about the wildlife you (don't) see in a corn field. Even lumber tree farming shows that the animal culture is drastically different than wildlife as the 'food chains' are not really supported as they are wild. You can't provide a habitat for some animals and expect them to stay if their prey do not like that habitat. Monocrop harvesting is typically dependent upon reliable, predictable, and consistent patterns so that machinery can specialize to it for increased efficiency which makes the process affordable.

Syngas, to be affordable, will not be dependent upon laborious and inefficient harvesting of whatever biomass they encounter. To be affordable, like all crop-dependent processes, farmers will play to the market and plant the fastest growing, highest yield, biomass they can, in a monocrop environment, just like soy beans, corn, etc. Whether it's rapeseed, hemp, bamboo, whatever - it will be a monocrop environment hostile to natural life.

Wildlife does not benefit from syngas.

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science

rconnor -" I agree, indeed orbital cycles demonstrates that CO2 drives temperature. But I’m guessing this isn’t what you are getting at."

Is that a serious statement? Please explain the causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and distance from the sun.

"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

RE: The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science