Climate change

[johnu]

That value will depend on the amount of the adjustments made to the measurements.

 

I asked a question that should have been simple. Will 2019 be one of the top 10 hottest years? Top 20? Or just average?

[Al_U_Card]

It will also likely be within the range of measurement uncertainty, like most if not all of the previous ten "hottest years evah!" Hardly simple, when even Gavin Schmidt admits that they cannot determine statistical significance for their claims, it just becomes more of the same, hype.

[johnu]

It will also likely be within the range of measurement uncertainty, like most if not all of the previous ten "hottest years evah!" Hardly simple, when even Gavin Schmidt admits that they cannot determine statistical significance for their claims, it just becomes more of the same, hype.

 

Then why are you posting what you are basically admitting is useless data?

[Al_U_Card]

Then why are you posting what you are basically admitting is useless data?

Hardly useless. The difference between actual data and the models shows them to be inaccurate, no matter how precise their average pretends to be. This information is only unused by people who try to ignore it and its implications for CAGW hysteria.

[johnu]

Hardly useless. The difference between actual data and the models shows them to be inaccurate, no matter how precise their average pretends to be. This information is only unused by people who try to ignore it and its implications for CAGW hysteria.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[johnu]

More buffoonery :(

 

Scientists Slam Dennison's Clueless Climate Change Tweet: ‘He’s A Clown’

 

I would like to take a moment to defend clowns worldwide for these libelous comparisons to Dennison.

[Al_U_Card]

More buffoonery :(

 

Scientists Slam Dennison's Clueless Climate Change Tweet: ‘He’s A Clown’

 

I would like to take a moment to defend clowns worldwide for these libelous comparisons to Dennison.

Anyone that subscribes to the consensus that "climate is changing rapidly..." (from the Huffpost link) is more buffoon than scientist. Rapidly, indeed as rapid as it has always been, no more no less. Real analysis based on actual data supercedes any opinion especially ones that advocate for changing the weather.

[johnu]

Anyone that subscribes to the consensus that "climate is changing rapidly..." (from the Huffpost link) is more buffoon than scientist. Rapidly, indeed as rapid as it has always been, no more no less. Real analysis based on actual data supercedes any opinion especially ones that advocate for changing the weather.

 

Beware the fickle finger of buffoonery for it points at you. B-)

 

You post presumably actual data since I won't waste time fact checking, and then claim "you" can't make predictions. Presumably because you need to wait until the actual time period data has been gathered and you can claim victory if your data correlated with the result, and that adjustments needed to be be made if the data doesn't correlate with the result. That's (un) "real" science.

 

Then a ridiculous diversion about the definition of "rapid". I'm sure rest of the climate change deniers are suitably pacified by this type of argument to be completely satisfied.

[johnu]

Anyone that subscribes to the consensus that "climate is changing rapidly..." (from the Huffpost link) is more buffoon than scientist. Rapidly, indeed as rapid as it has always been, no more no less. Real analysis based on actual data supercedes any opinion especially ones that advocate for changing the weather.

 

What a coincidence :) The Federal Climate report was just released today as many expected (because releasing this in the middle of the 4 day Thanksgiving holiday will effectively bury it for much of the public).

 

Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns

 

David Easterling is the director of the Technical Support Unit at the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.

 

"The global average temperature is much higher and is rising more rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced, and this warming trend can only be explained by human activities," Easterling said.

 

I leave it to other readers to make their own conclusions about who is a buffoon.

[Al_U_Card]

Drilliing down, (3 layers from the CNN report that starts with a smokestack "spewing" water vapor) we find the heart of the issue. Where are they finding all these doom and gloom scenarios? Well, try the (Climate is a non-linear, chaotic system whose future states cannot be predicted - IPCC ) standard of "excellence" in climate impact "framing" and you get this.

 

"NCA4 authors have grounded their assessment in an analysis of the widely-used scenarios termed “Representative Concentration Pathways,” or RCPs, that form the foundation for the majority of recent coordinated global climate model experiments. (RCPs are also discussed in this report’s Front Matter.) Consistent with previous NCAs, NCA4 relies in part on climate scenarios and modeling efforts generated for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. In May 2015, USGCRP released a memo outlining the decisions regarding climate-related scenarios and the rationale around them.2 Specifically, USGCRP decided to use the RCPs3 ,4 and associated model results from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)5 that underpinned the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), completed in 2013–2014.

 

The CMIP model results, as driven by the RCP scenarios, have similarly become standard reference inputs for virtually all work in the United States and internationally concerning climate change science, impacts, vulnerability, adaptation, and mitigation. It is, therefore, reasonable, practical, and in line with the expectations of the research community for NCA4 to use the most recently available model outputs from CMIP5, associated with the RCPs. CMIP5 climate data were widely available during the development of NCA4; products from the next phase of the CMIP project (CMIP6) were not available in time to support NCA4.

 

USGCRP further decided that NCA4 would focus primarily on RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 for framing purposes, while also considering other scenario information where appropriate (for example, RCP2.6). These RCPs capture a range of plausible atmospheric concentration futures that drive climate models. RCP8.5 is the high-end scenario (high emissions, high concentrations, large temperature increase) in the IPCC’s AR5; it likewise serves as the high-end scenario for NCA4, similar to the use of IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report (AR4) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 scenario in NCA3.6 RCP4.5 is not the lowest scenario in AR5, but it is similar to the AR4 SRES low-end B1 scenario that was used in NCA3. RCP2.6 represents the low end of the range considered by AR5, but it also assumes significantly greater emissions reductions, even for current and near-term emissions, than previous low-end scenarios used by the IPCC. The range represented by RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, therefore, provides the most continuity and consistency with the IPCC scenarios used for framing purposes by the previous NCA3."

 

Same old, same old. Perhaps buffoon might also mean gullible?

[Al_U_Card]

So, let's see how the 4 NCAs are faring over the most recent climatological period of 30 years.

 

 

Perhaps their warnings are getting more strident with time because Mother Nature is not cooperating and they are panicking? :lol:

[Al_U_Card]

As well as reasoned and fact-based refutations of the alarmism in the NCA.

 

Backup

[johnu]

...

Yada (apparently you can't predict future climate, no way no how)

...

 

...

Yada (another cherry picked graph, do you actually have a conclusion or prediction?)

...

 

...

Yada

...

 

I repeat my question from earlier in the thread:

 

I asked a question that should have been simple. Will 2019 be one of the top 10 hottest years? Top 20? Or just average?

 

How can this not be an easy question for you? Unless your research was tabulated by Dennison's 400 pound hacker sitting on a bed?

[johnu]

GOP Shrugs Off Bombshell Climate Report

 

It seems that not even the "Dennison" administration can get Republicans concerned about the devastating consequences of climate change.

 

GOP senators retreated to well-trod talking points on Sunday when pressed by interviewers about an alarming federal report detailing the impact of unchecked greenhouse emissions on American livelihoods, agriculture, the economy and the environment.

 

The problem in a nutshell.

[johnu]

GOP Shrugs Off Bombshell Climate Report

 

The problem in a nutshell.

 

I guess the Republicans and Fox Propaganda have more important matters to contemplate:

 

CNN’s Brian Stelter Roasts Fox For Focusing On Ocasio-Cortez’s Shoes More Than Climate Report

 

In fairness to Fox Propaganda, fashion is a 2 1/2 trillion dollar industry.

[Al_U_Card]

More factual analysis of observations concerning the California fires and a purported link to the effects of GW

 

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/11/was-global-warming-significant-factor.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&m=1

[johnu]

Dennison On Climate Change Report: ‘I Don’t Believe It’

 

The president also attempted to place the blame for global warming on China, Japan and “all these other countries.” “Right now, we’re the cleanest we’ve ever been,” he claimed.

 

Well, that settles it. :lol:

[johnu]

More factual analysis of observations concerning the California fires and a purported link to the effects of GW

 

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/11/was-global-warming-significant-factor.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&m=1

 

What kind of quack is this guy? He didn't mention raking once as the reason for the fires.

 

Dennison said:

"You gotta take care of the floors. You know the floors of the forest, very important... I was with the President of Finland... he called it a forest nation and they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things and they don't have any problem."

[PassedOut]

I was wrong on climate change. Why can’t other conservatives admit it, too?

 

Compared with the crushing costs of climate change, the action needed to curb greenhouse-gas emissions is modest and manageable — if we act now. Jerry Taylor, president of the libertarian Niskanen Center, estimates that a carbon tax would increase average electricity rates from 17 cents to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. The average household, he writes, would see spending on energy rise “only about $35 per month.” That’s not nothing — but it’s better than allowing climate change to continue unabated.

 

I’ve owned up to the danger. Why haven’t other conservatives? They are captives, first and foremost, of the fossil fuel industry, which outspent green groups by 10 to 1 in lobbying on climate change from 2000 to 2016. But they are also captives of their own rigid ideology. It is a tragedy for the entire planet that America’s governing party is impervious to science and reason.

For the denier trolls, science and reason does not come into play of course, and they'll keep posting. But for the governing party of the US, the current know-nothing posture is really unfortunate.

 

It's only a matter of time before the fossil fuel industry switches gears and maintains that they are not to blame because everyone knew that fossil fuels were responsible for global warming and yet nothing was done. The cigarette industry wrote the playbook for that.

:angry:

[Al_U_Card]

Science and reason are anathema to climastrology. Over the last 30 years , billions have been spent to "improve" the estimate of climate sensitivity (CO2's effect on global temperature and our only way to contribute or not to CAGW) from 1.5 - 4.5 to ... wait for it ... 1.5 - 4.5 ! BUT now the IPCC relies on "expert opinion" rather than the latest experimental/theoretical values that have all been in the 1.0 - 1.5 range and thus, no longer a problem. So much for the scientific method and reasoned analysis. The IPCC is a political entity and eschews science for agenda dictated by the UNFCCC.

[johnu]

Science and reason are anathema to climastrology. Over the last 30 years , billions have been spent to "improve" the estimate of climate sensitivity (CO2's effect on global temperature and our only way to contribute or not to CAGW) from 1.5 - 4.5 to ... wait for it ... 1.5 - 4.5 ! BUT now the IPCC relies on "expert opinion" rather than the latest experimental/theoretical values that have all been in the 1.0 - 1.5 range and thus, no longer a problem. So much for the scientific method and reasoned analysis. The IPCC is a political entity and eschews science for agenda dictated by the UNFCCC.

 

Quoted from somewhere like a true 3%'er

[johnu]

Dennison Says He’s Too Intelligent To Believe In Climate Change

 

Wow, he must be the smartest guy in the room. :lol: I really believe that in all sincerity because the other "guys" in the room don't appear to be any smarter.

 

“It’s not based on facts. ... It’s not data-driven,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a news briefing Tuesday. “We’d like to see something that is more data-driven. It’s based on modeling.”

 

Duhhh, modeling takes data and tries to project into the future. You can't collect data from the future because ... wait for it ... it's not the future yet. B-)

 

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke also moved to walk back the report’s conclusions, saying they were based on “the worst scenarios.”

 

Duhhh, there were a number of projections based on several levels of assumptions. He would have had no problem seeing them if he had actually read any of the report, instead of only reading Republican talking points.

[MrAce]

[Al_U_Card]

The new study uses a similar method to the energy budget model approach. However, instead of matching the global temperature record to global warming, the new research attempts to match temperature records to natural, long-term fluctuations in temperature.

 

Looking at natural variability rather than the warming trend allowed the scientists to exclude a range of uncertainties associated with human-caused climate change, Cox explains:

 

“Normally the way this [research] is done is by looking at the historical record warming, which makes sense. We’ve seen 1C of warming, roughly speaking, and so you may think that must tell you how sensitive the climate is. But it doesn’t. The main reason it doesn’t is that we don’t know how much energy or heat we’ve put in the system in terms of radiative forcing – greenhouse gases.”

 

To understand how historical temperature fluctuations have changed over the past century, the researchers first removed the global warming trend from a set of observational temperature data.

 

They then compared this data to results from a series of 22 global climate models. Some models had lower climate sensitivity, while some some models had higher climate sensitivity.

 

The results are shown on the chart below. On the chart, black dots show natural fluctuations in temperature from 1940 to 2020. Each line represents the results from one model, with magenta lines showing results from higher sensitivity models and green showing the results from models with lower climate sensitivity.

 

 

 

Most interesting, using those climate models to find the "natural" sensitivity by compariing model results. Expert opinion indeed. All of the most recent assays and evaluations using models, measured temperatures demonstrate why there was a need to "update" the need for speed.

 

http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/models/climate-sensitivity/climate_sensitivity5.png

[johnu]

...

More Yada

...

 

QFP