| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
S.W., it's not so much that I'm 'hot' over global cooling, as that I'm 'cool' (read irritated) by the assumption that anybody who dares to question the zeal of the more rabid warmers is a head in the sand nutter. (Not referring to those here who present facts to back their credentials.)
For a number of years the odds have appeared to be in favour of warming, and clearly, there are places in the world which are experiencing very strange effects, yet....
As a sea user, I look at Macs Global Mean Temp graph and can't help thinking of ocean swells and troughs. Despite all the warming evidence that graph does look remarkably like the crest of a swell whose peak passed in 2000, and is on the way back down again, as, perhaps, from 1880 to 1940.
Facetious comment maybe, but that graph IS an actual admission (at last) that there HAS been a small but clear fall in mean global temps since 2000. (As opposed to the previous assertion that the warming rate had merely slowed, but was still continuing.)
And IF a steady fall back was to occur (in line with cooling) wouldn't the 'curious' weather effects in some places surely decline? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey, at 6'2" I am confident in my stature, and grasp of warming facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GT seems quite perturbed about what he considers global warming extremists. I don't know very much about climate change policy in the UK, but the changes and proposals put into place in the United States are pretty moderate and far from extreme. California has a fairly substantial set of policies, including a cap and trade system, that is generating money for responding to climate change without damage to the economy. Obama has put in place policies through the stimulus effort that are having the expected impact of encouraging conservation, which is quite cost-effective, and developing new technology. Just read today about a new Bloomberg New Energy Finance report that says the costs of photovoltaic systems have dropped almost 75% since 2009.
there is a lot of awfulizing about inefficient subsidies by the carbon industries, but it is mostly about trying to cling to their own subsidies. Add in the dramatic increase in energy efficiency in new cars, not to mention the substantial recovery of the American auto industry, and you see a series of moderate, and effective steps to reduce energy consumption--without upsetting the economy. Pig oil will screech because their concern is maintaining market share. And coal will blame the market impacts of cheaper natural gas on that "socialist" Obama. Capitalists talk glibly about the wonders of the market--but industrialists avoid it if they possibly can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You can't make up stuff as stupid as the Republicans try to pass off. In yesterday's Senate hearings, John Boozman, Arkansas Republican, stressed his scientific credentials--as an optometrist. Really? Peer-related papers and all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suspect that Boozman's credentials were as good as any of the other Senators at the hearing.
How about the summary from the EXPERT called to testify at the hearing:
| Quote: | Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan
Posted on January 16, 2014 | 286 Comments
by Judith Curry
The hearing is now concluded, I’m on a plane flying back to Atlanta.
The testimony from each of the witnesses is now online [here]. The link for my testimony is [here].
The content of my verbal remarks is below:
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony this morning. I am Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. I have devoted 30 years to conducting research on topics including climate of the Arctic, the role of clouds and aerosols in the climate system, and the climate dynamics of extreme weather events.
The premise of the President’s Climate Action Plan is that there is an overwhelming judgment of science that anthropogenic global warming is already producing devastating impacts. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. Multiple lines of evidence presented in the recent IPCC 5th assessment report suggest that the case for anthropogenic warming is now weaker than in 2007, when the 4th assessment report was published.
My written testimony documented the following evidence:
◾For the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature. There is a growing discrepancy between observations and climate model projections. Observations since 2011 have fallen below the 90% envelope of climate model projections
◾The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for this hiatus in warming.
◾There is growing evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentrations
◾Based on expert judgment in light of this evidence, the IPCC 5th assessment report lowered its surface temperature projection relative to the model projections for the period 2016-2036.
The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late 20th century warming and projections of 21st century climate change. Sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, and the level of uncertainty in its value, is a key input into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses, including estimates of the social cost of carbon.
If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability. In a recent journal publication, I provided a rationale for projecting that the hiatus in warming could extend to the 2030’s. By contrast, according to climate model projections, the probability of the hiatus extending beyond 20 years is vanishing small. If the hiatus does extend beyond 20 years, then a very substantial reconsideration will be needed of the 20th century attribution and the 21st century projections of climate change.
Attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and multi-decadal time scales. Even if CO2 mitigation strategies are successfully implemented and climate model projections are correct, an impact on the climate would not be expected for a number of decades. Further, solar variability, volcanic eruptions and natural internal climate variability will continue to be sources of unpredictable climate surprises.
As a result of the hiatus in warming, there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability on multi-decadal timescales. Further, the IPCC AR5 and Special Report on Extreme Events published in 2012, find little evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans.
The perception that humans are causing an increase in extreme weather events is a primary motivation for the President’s Climate Change Plan. However, in the U.S., most types of weather extremes were worse in the 1930’s and even in the 1950’s than in the current climate, while the weather was overall more benign in the 1970’s. The extremes of the 1930’s and 1950’s are not attributable to greenhouse warming and are associated with natural climate variability (and in the case of the dustbowl drought and heat waves, also to land use practices). This sense that extreme weather events are now more frequent and intense is symptomatic of pre-1970 ‘weather amnesia’.
The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is heavily influenced by natural climate variability. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is exacerbating extreme weather events, vulnerability to extreme weather events will continue to increase owing to increasing population and concentration of wealth in vulnerable regions. Regions that find solutions to current problems of climate variability and extreme weather events and address challenges associated with an increasing population are likely to be well prepared to cope with any additional stresses from climate change.
Nevertheless, the premise of dangerous anthropogenic climate change is the foundation for a far-reaching plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events. Elements of this Plan may be argued as important for associated energy policy reasons, economics, and/or public health and safety. However, claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.
Good judgment requires recognizing that climate change is characterized by conditions of deep uncertainty. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not anthropogenic climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.
This concludes my testimony. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I love the way the righty media is downplaying global warming as the polar vortex swept across the country, yet California is 85 degrees in mid January, and forrests, and fields that are usually covered by 20 feet of snow, or drenched by torrential rains, are crispy dry, and burning in some cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | | I love the way the righty media is downplaying global warming as the polar vortex swept across the country, yet California is 85 degrees in mid January, and forrests, and fields that are usually covered by 20 feet of snow, or drenched by torrential rains, are crispy dry, and burning in some cases. |
LOL, the polar vortex which has been around since weather became a studied science.
20' of snow and torrential rains? Really? In Cali? Where?
I've lived here my entire life, skiing, surfing, totally taken advantage of what this state has to offer, and I've never been anywhere in this state where 20' of snow and torrential rains are common, especially w/in the current drought area.
And just for shits and giggles, compare the size of our current drought area, to the rest of the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is anyone surprised that NW30 brainwashes himself with Judith Curry, identified as a "climate misinformer?"
Here's a few of the things she has gotten wrong:
Favourite climate myths by Judith Curry
Below are many of the climate myths used by Judith Curry plus how often each myth has been used.
| Quote: | Climate myths by Curry What the Science Says Usage
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
1
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature" The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports. 1
"IPCC is alarmist"
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
1
"There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. 1
|
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
So it's her fault you're full of it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I used to get season passes for Squaw, my former room mate worked there, yes those totals are accurate at the top of the Emigrant, Siberia, or Granite Chief chairs, which all are just above the timber line.
That's a far cry from "fields and forests usually covered with 20' of snow".
Enough said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
