Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
"I walk to work, I drive a Prius, I'm a fanatic about turning lights off and keeping air conditioning high and heating low, so I try to personally minimize my own carbon footprint. But in terms of telling other people what to do, I don't have any big answers." -judith curry
someone i can agree with (on the telling other people what to do part). I'm glad boomzilla linked her blog now, that's got to be the most liberal thing he's ever linked
-
in essence, that while humans may be contributing to climate change, we simply don't know how the climate will behave in the coming decades, so there may be no point in trying to reduce emissions.
So, I'm not the only one making this argument.
That's good to know.
-
1 If Russia gets hotter, good for them.
2 America does a lot of agriculture, FUD is that agriculture in America is DOOOOMMMMMEEEDDD.
3 It's still producing a hiatus globally.
4 The final global temperature will only get weirder.
5 The actual rise of average temperature over a longer course of time is probably lower than they predict.- seriously one of the dumbest global warming is not a problem arguments there is. why do you post this crap, it just makes me think the rest of your points are going to be incredibly stupid.
- Agriculture is already having to discuss what to do in the current drought situations, which are predicted to be worse when the temperature increases. whether that's due to AGW or flying spaghetti monsters, temperature increases are not going to be very much fun for the agricultural industry.
- Is it? His paper isn't about GLOBAL hiatus, it's about US temperatures. I made a slight leap to say that it MIGHT impact global temperatures in the same way, and explain the lack of increase over the last few years, but that's not represented by that paper. Again you seem to have zero understanding of the difference between US and GLOBAL.
- Again. See above.
- Hell I actually agree with that, but wish I didn't given how terrible the rest of what you said is. Either way, if it takes 100 years to rise 2C or 200 years (2C in 200years is what his paper's monotonic mode temperature increase line extrapolates out to)... well, I guess it's the "I got mine" mentality. I suppose I don't really care about the temperatures 200 years from now either, but I do find it pretty stupid to stick your head in the sand and say it's not going to be a problem.
-
I suppose I don't really care about the temperatures 200 years from now either
It's more or less that, I doubt our measurements do anything to help predict climate 200 years from now.
Hell I actually agree with that, but wish I didn't given how terrible the rest of what you said is.
The rest was satirical.
Although I do have a little more hope for US agriculture. I see the sudden leaps in temperature the greater threat.
The temperature could suddenly drop next decade to pre-1970 values and I wouldn't say there's nothing to worry about because the average increase over the last 100 years is 0. I would be worried that the cold spell would have a different drastic shift.
-
I notice something interesting about that black dashed line.Is it... that it's trending steadily up over the last 80 years in that chart?
You have found the definition of monotonic! Congratulations!
Removing because I jumped to conclusions about the blog's purpose due to the source of the link..
Because you're really just a troll and blaming Fox News / Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is your goto move.
-
Now, i'll grant you that it probably is a very career-limiting move for their actual SCIENTIFIC job prospects if they're parroting some of the BS seen here.
Yeah, why would grants for science be important to a scientist?
-
No wonder they have it so easy selling BS to you people.
This is funny coming from a guy who has bought into the hype of skilless models.
-
Now if boomzilla is actually posting it as support for AGW + AMO/PDO, then... yay? But somehow I doubt that's what he was going for.
I'm not sure what that means. I was posting it because it's interesting and just another point against the people saying we're heading for catastrophe. Because those predictions rely on most of the warming discussed in the paper as being man made. Which means that the models have way too high assumptions about climate sensitivity.
-
The strawman here would be that someone thinks that paper disproves AGW, which it doesn't - if anything it bolsters an AGW argument.
What AGW argument? If you mean, the argument that AGW isn't a catastrophe, then I'd heartily agree with you. If you mean something else, then you must be trolling.
-
is correct if JC is being misrepresented by boomzilla. otherwise, no, she's not correct.
I just quoted her. I'm glad we've got the official @darkmatter ruling on the topic, though. I'll sleep much better now.
-
So she's being misrepresented by media/conservatives as an anti-AGW scientist due to her congressional interview where she said that scientists just don't know yet how much effect warming will have.
Are they? This sounds like more baseless trolling. I mean...I wouldn't be surprised to see someone playing up her stance that we are far too certain about this stuff, but this is just a bit of simplification to deal with whether AGW is a catastrophe or not. I know that thought is too nuanced for you, which is likely true for others, too (it certainly is for the sort of people who have denounced JC for her heresies).
-
Quick, get the marshall islands on the phone. I'll let them know their island isn't really disappearing into the ocean, xaade said so.
A lot of problems with marginal places barely above sea level comes down to stuff like subsidence as much or more than sea level issues.
-
I'm glad boomzilla linked her blog now, that's got to be the most liberal thing he's ever linked
Really? I don't recall her going into politics so much. You get a lot of that in the comments. I've always read her as an honest scientist willing to call bullshit when she sees it.
-
Just to see what happens.
Don't take it seriously please.
I matched the range in X and Y, but I didn't compare the baseline temps.
Ah, crap, missed .2 degrees, try again.
So, nothing positive, but it puts it into the realm of study-worthy.
It definitely looks like the global temp is following a similar pattern, just with less extreme oscillation.
-
I'm not sure what that means. I was posting it because it's interesting and just another point against the people saying we're heading for catastrophe.
Except that it's not.
Because those predictions rely on most of the warming discussed in the paper as being man made.
Not really, the predictions of catastrophe rely on the temperatures continuing to rise, not whether the rise is man-made, and barely whether the scale is 50 years or 200 years.
-
It definitely looks like the global temp is following a similar pattern, just with less extreme oscillation.
if oceanic oscillations are the cause, the less extreme oscillation globally would be due to the fact that the PDO oscillation has a much lower amplitude, but a much higher effect on global temperatures than the AMO.
-
It looks plausible. And would definitely help in predictions.
-
So do you think that a 2C rise in the yearly global average temperature isn't a bad thing?
Note that I am not asking whether you think it will hit 2C, or how long it will take, because you've already clarified that you aren't about to make any predictions about temperature. However, you have been perfectly willing to predict that whatever it is that you're refusing to predict won't be bad, so I can only ask the above.
-
It looks plausible. And would definitely help in predictions.
Everything I've seen does point to oceanic oscillations having an effect on global temperatures on the decadal scale. Everything I've seen also points to an underlying rise in average temperature that is wholly unrelated to oceanic oscillation. Oceanic oscillation may make any 10 to 15 year subsection of average temperature charts look either benign or catastrophic, but they would not have much to do with the 1C rise in temperature over the last 100 years, because the net addition to average temperatures shown by the oscillations according to that research is 0 or very close to 0.
-
Just to see what happens.Don't take it seriously please
Actually your top line chart looks closer now, though isn't the gov predictions still from a global standpoint while the AMO chart prediction (i assume that's what the purple line is?) is US temps only?
-
It looks closer but it's .2c degrees off in scale.
Both are in C degrees when I checked.
Here's an overlay with a sin function.
But it fails regressively.
Of course, you may say that CO2 was less of an influence prior to 1900
But you also have to consider any acceleration in CO2 output.
Middle line shows a ~.9C rise in temp in 98 years.
-
Except that it's not.
Uh huh.
Not really, the predictions of catastrophe rely on the temperatures continuing to rise, not whether the rise is man-made, and barely whether the scale is 50 years or 200 years.
False.
-
So do you think that a 2C rise in the yearly global average temperature isn't a bad thing?
I don't think it's a catastrophe, but it also looks like AGW will be less than that. If you've been paying attention (and it's pretty obvious you haven't) then you'd have heard them talking about limiting stuff to 2C, not about 2C being a catastrophe. The catastrophic stuff has been wetting the bed about 4C rises, which is looking more and more like fantasy.
-
Everything I've seen does point to oceanic oscillations having an effect on global temperatures on the decadal scale.
Not everything. Because the climate models, on which the predictions of catastrophe are based, don't include that stuff. Which tells you that even their mediocre (if you are being generous) hindcasts are "right" for the wrong reasons, which should scare you if you want to rely on them predicting the future.
-
The 2C prediction is the bottom line on every chart i've linked. it is the temperature referenced by a recent piece about the marshall islands vanishing.
Setting temperature rise goals Limiting the average global surface temperature increase of 2°C (3.6°F) over the pre-industrial average has, since the 1990s, been commonly regarded as an adequate means of avoiding dangerous climate change, in science and policy making.[13][14] However, recent science has shown that the weather, environmental and social impacts of 2°C rise are much greater than the earlier science indicated, and that impacts for a 1°C rise are now expected to be as great as those previously assumed for a 2°C rise.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_changeanyway, this is goddamn tiring, getting ostriched on repeatedly. back to mute.
-
it's ok though, calling me a troll while sticking your head in the sand will make it all stop happening.
-
It looks more like 1C / 100 years to me.
And 200 years later, something else could happen.
It all seems.... insignificant.
In 200 years, we could have unlocked fusion power, or figure out fuel cells, or any number of sustainable green energy solutions.
Or we can keep penalizing the oil companies with carbon credit taxes, until they can't afford R&D for green energy. And all the favored green energy that the government is subsidizing can keep producing unsustainable solar panels.
This is why the debate over AGW is pointless.... .completely. Other than rewarding senators for spewing rhetoric and patting themselves on the back, because they convinced the public to hand over complete economic power.
-
anyway, this is goddamn tiring, getting ostriched on repeatedly.
I'll admit, your trolling is wearing me down, too.
The 2C prediction is the bottom line on every chart i've linked.
So what? That doesn't mean you understand anything about what you've been linking, which is the point. You're just blindly following this stuff with no understanding. Which is OK, just be clear about what you're doing.
-
it's ok though, calling me a troll while sticking your head in the sand will make it all stop happening.
Yeah, the guy who's actually looked at the data and the theories is the one sticking his head in the sand. I see what you mean.
-
The 2C prediction is the bottom line on every chart i've linked.
Dang...this is the problem with waiting a day to reply...I'd lost my chain of thought here...but also note the bit you posted:
Limiting the average global surface temperature increase of 2°C (3.6°F) over the pre-industrial average has, since the 1990s, been commonly regarded as an adequate means of avoiding dangerous climate change, in science and policy making.
That was pretty much what I said. Of course, now they're
to 1C. I suspect that's motivated at least in part because credible sensitivity estimates keep coming down, and 2C is closer to the top of the estimated range than the bottom, like it used to be.I've never noticed the paper quoted here. It's from 2008, so prior to the latest IPCC, but everyone still seems to be talking about 2C as the "save the world" sort of goal. Based on the abstract and footnotes there, it seems to be basing the claim on stuff like more heatwaves and hurricanes. Certainly the hurricane thing is a red herring as far as science goes. The heatwave stuff has a whiff to it, too. I'm not aware of studies able to attribute heatwaves to anything CO2 related currently.
-
That was pretty much what I said. Of course, now they're to 1C. I suspect that's motivated at least in part because credible sensitivity estimates keep coming down, and 2C is closer to the top of the estimated range than the bottom, like it used to be.
I'll grant you, stopping there and ignoring the next line makes it a lot easier for you to ostrichIn a July 2011 speech, climate scientist Kevin Anderson explained that for this reason, avoiding dangerous climate in the conventional sense is no longer possible, because the temperature rise is already close to 1°C, with effects formerly assumed for 2°C
but yes, if you're 6 years behind on climate science, i can understand why you though 4C was the important line. Sorry if I was making arguments based on current theories instead of the stuff you remember.
-
no time for this crap today though, i don't feel like putting in an endless stream of quotes to listen to you go LA LA LA LA. if i wanted to have someone stick their fingers in their ears, i'd stay home and deal with my kid.
-
I'll grant you, stopping there and ignoring the next line makes it a lot easier for you to ostrich
Ooooh....yeah, a speech!
but yes, if you're 6 years behind on climate science,
So...a couple of people are hyperventilating over 1C and that makes me 6 years behind?
Sorry if I was making arguments based on current theories instead of the stuff you remember.
By posting a 7 year old paper that didn't seem to change anything about the 2C target? Pretty weak sauce.
-
no time for this crap today though, i don't feel like putting in an endless stream of quotes to listen to you go LA LA LA LA
Uh huh. Have you convinced yourself yet or are you still in your normal nihilistic trolling mode?
-
if you're 6 years behind on climate science, i can understand why you thought 4C
Haha, you said the word DOOHM, that's so last year. It's Dume this year.
-
Apparently whether you "know what you're talking about" is determined by whether you agree, not whether you actually know what you're talking about.
We probably debated this topic in the last few posts using more actual facts than the Pope read before nodding his head.
Did you know an apple falls when you drop it. Congratulations, you're more correct than string theorists!
Yeah, scientists aren't political my ass.
-
The beyond-two-degree inferno
by Judith Curry The time for debate has ended. – Marcia McNutt, editor of Science
The time for debate has ended. – Marcia McNutt, editor of Science
...
Here is a clear-cut example of advocacy by a scientist, Marcia McNutt, who also happens to be the Chief Editor of Science: The beyond-two-degree inferno.
...
My concern re introducing bias in Science is several orders of magnitude greater. Science, along with Nature, has far and away the highest impact factor of any scientific journals on the planet – Science matters. Like Nature, Science sends out for review only a small fraction of the submitted papers. Apart from the role the Chief Editor may have in selecting which papers go out for review or eventually get published, this essay sends a message to the other editors and reviewers that papers challenging the consensus are not to be published in Science. Not to mention giving favored status to papers by activist authors that sound the ‘alarm’ – pal review and all that. After all, ‘the time for debate has ended.’<I wonder what message the trolls will take from this?
-
sends out for review only a small fraction of the submitted papers
I thought review was the one thing that keeps science professional and honest.
-
There are a lot of misconceptions about what peer review is and does.
-
Well, I know that peer review doesn't have to cover editorials, but if the opinions you're expressing aren't reviewed as well, you might as well have a disclaimer.
"The scientific study has been reviewed, but the following op-ed statements have not been reviewed and do not reflect the consensus of the scientific community"
-
I don't think the disclaimer is required for stuff like that. We're getting into crazy warning label territory at that point. But when the boss starts talking about things in a certain way, it tends to become unofficial policy. That's what she's talking about there.
-
Well, the label is more of a personal ethics requirement.
Say,
"This effect has caused temperatures to rise .1 degrees. This has the possibility to effect long term growth in threes in South Asia. My opinion is that they should start replanting to cover for it."
So, it should be everyone's personal responsibility to clearly label your statements.
I think it's clear that this is opinion, but it should still be labeled, so that you avoid conflict of interest.
-
New research on atmospheric radiative transfer
by Judith Curry Three new papers highlight how atmospheric radiative transfer, particularly how it is treated in climate models, is not ‘settled science.’
One paper is actually from 2006, but...
Three new papers highlight how atmospheric radiative transfer, particularly how it is treated in climate models, is not ‘settled science.’
...
But the issue is that all of the errors/uncertainties highlighted in the above 3 papers are systematic errors in a given model, directly giving rise to errors in sensitivity to CO2, although it is difficult to infer anything quantitatively re climate sensitivity from these papers.WRT to the 2006 paper:
The Fu-Liou radiation code is a state-of-the-art research quality radiation code. It is very computationally intensive, and hence not used in climate models for production runs for CMIP/IPCC. Although I did spot this presentation where the Fu-Liou code was incorporated into the UCLA GCM, although it doesn’t directly address the issues raised in the 2006 paper.
So, it's 9-ish years old and not incorporated into the models.
-
It is very computationally intensive
da fuq?
The impending doom scenario is at least a decade away.
Is it that computationally intense, that it'll take a decade to complete.Are we at Deep Thought level here?
Is the answer going to be 42?
[sarcasm]
They failed the ozone crisis. So, to make sure they can keep their pockets lined, they create a new crisis, with an indeterminate future."Ok guys, we only need this to go on for 40 more years."
"Because that's when it'll be too late"
"No, John. Did you not get the memo. 40 years is when we retire. It's all a scam. Get with the program."
[/sarcasm]
-
Is it that computationally intense, that it'll take a decade to complete.
The models are already computationally intensive. But it's not surprising that there are more precise algorithms that aren't incorporated in a global circulation model. Nevertheless, it points out the foolish certainty that many have over what the models are outputting.
-
But it's not surprising that there are more precise algorithms that aren't incorporated in a global circulation model.
The usual way you do that sort of thing is model small pieces of precise model and couple that to the larger less exact model as correction terms, under the assumption that the general features of the precise model are replicated over lots of similar conditions. It's a complete fudge, but you really can't model the entire atmosphere at the individual molecule level.
Anything higher level than that and you're already into gross approximations anyway. You've just gotta pick what those approximations are.Anyone demanding that we know precisely what is going to happen before acting is in fact counselling for never acting at all (whether or not they realise this). You can't ever predict precisely, especially when it comes to the future, so get over it already…
-
You can't ever predict precisely, especially when it comes to the future, so get over it already…
That's true, but saying that I have to believe in and act upon some prediction because an inaccurate model says so is retarded.
-
So come up with a better model. There's always room for that.
-
Well, the model seems to assume that all post 1970 is due to AGW and that AGW minimally affected temperatures prior 1970, and therefore ignores the previous rise from below the average as not a part of the warming trend.
Which makes the prediction many multiples higher than it should be.
-
No, don't tell me the things that you think are wrong. I just don't care enough (as I've too many other things to do). Actually create the model and convince people who do climate modelling that your new model is better. You know, actually engage in research.
Armchair criticism is easy. It's also functionally useless in all fields of endeavour.
Neil deGrasse Tyson on Twitter
