[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-24, 08:04, said:

Not at all. That's just the fear of pants-pissers who have no understanding of the power of free markets.

The models that you favor are much more inaccurate than the models of serious climate scientists, and putting faith in your models will create immense expenses over time. It's already too late to avoid some of those expenses, but raising false alarms about the cost of reducing emissions is a fool's errand.

The economics of mitigation, even based on the IPCC's own figures (the Stern report is an example of the fantasy that they propose) are basically without merit as far as keeping global temperatures from rising. I favor no model. I do favor seeking out efficient and cost-effective solutions to real problems that relate to pollution, energy availability and human well-being. The UN is interested in the propagation of a bureaucracy that ensures its own continuity rather than any potential humane result. Rational analysis of the facts and figures refutes the model projections with ease. Climate science is a disgrace to the essence of scientific endeavor and needs to be relegated to the historical scrap-heap reserved for Piltdown Man, Lysenkoism and McCarthyism.

[Daniel1960]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-23, 16:13, said:

Exactly. That's why models are necessary to predict the effects of global warming. Because of the complexity of the climate system, the modeling problems are very difficult to solve, and aren't amenable to exact solutions in any case.

However, we don't need exact solutions. We know enough to say that it will be very dangerous not to cut back on CO2 emissions.

I agree that we do not need exact solution. However, what evidence can you present that it will be very dangerous not to cut back on CO2 emissions? As you mention, modeling problems are very difficult to solve, and current models are woefully inadequate. Based on all this, the consequences of continued CO2 emissions are largely unknown.

[Al_U_Card]

There is also Swanson 2013 that described the latest "generation" of GCMs as:

"As a result, the current generation (CMIP5) model ensemble mean performs worse at capturing the observed latitudinal structure of warming than the earlier generation (CMIP3) model ensemble. This is despite a marked reduction in the inter-ensemble spread going from CMIP3 to CMIP5, which by itself indicates higher confidence in the consensus solution. In other words, CMIP5 simulations viewed in aggregate appear to provide a more precise, but less accurate picture of actual climate warming compared to CMIP3."

Thus, the current crop (crap?) of models was "improved" to give better agreement with the erroneous (not the same as real-world observations) value expected by climastrologists. That is how effed up this "discipline" has become as it gets steered by the agenda of alarmists. Better to agree on what they want than on what reality actually is...

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of agendas vs. observations, we have the spectre of ocean "acidification". I wonder how the actual, physical measurement of ocean pH over the last century compares to recent, hyped-up modeled reports (Feely et al etc.)... Or do I?

[Daniel1960]

Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskolczi has a paper in which he claims that the greenhouse effect is saturatied and water vapor is controlling warming and cooling. An analysis can be found here:

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1244

[Al_U_Card]

This just in from the peer-review...the hiatus may well be MUCH longer based on a holocene-length view. Now then, that hiatus is from rising temps or is it really a stop on the way back down to the next ice age?

[Al_U_Card]

Yet another voice of reason...

Interviewed was meteorologist Klaus Hager. He was active in meteorology for 44 years and now has been a lecturer at the University of Augsburg almost 10 years. He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement.

The Augsburger Zeitung writes that “hardly any of his colleagues are as familiar with the weather as the 73-year old is“.

“Fluctuations dominate climate, not trends”

The Augsburger Zeitung wanted to know Hager’s views on climate change. Hager doesn’t hold back any punches, claiming that “people are being deceived” on the subject and that man’s influence on the climate is very small.

On whether temperatures are warming in the Augsburg region, Hager says there is “no detectable trend showing this is so” and that it’s been cooling since 2005. When it comes to the climate variability, he agrees with Professor Lauscher of the University of Vienna: “Fluctuations dominate climate, not trends“.

Warming an artifact of new instrumentation

One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ (my emphasis):



For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.”

Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.

Hager also calls climate change and climate protection “ideologically charged topics“.

“People are being deceived especially when it comes to reducing CO2.” He tells the AZ that weather depends on dozens of single factors – all of various weighting.

The AZ, seemingly stunned by it all, asks Hager: “So you’re saying that the calls for climate protection connected to CO2 are not serious?” Hager confirms, answering:

The CO2 taxes that are being levied are actually a sin against national wealth. If you want to stop the alleged climate change, then you need to ask what it’s all about and who profits from it at the expense of the citizens.”

Hager then explains how CO2 is only a trace gas and that its role in climate is overhyped.

When asked about how his position is completely contradictory to that of the mainstream, Hager scoffs at the notion:

You know I check facts and I want others to think about it and not to just swallow everything unfiltered just, because its the current zeitgeist. Manmade climate change will turn out to be a climate bubble. It’s going to pop like the forest die-off scare – and will do so because of nature – here I mean when solar activity falls again.”

I wonder how much longer he’ll lecturing at the university of Augsburg. Expect the warming-jihadists to go after him. Kudos to the Augsburger Zeitung for printing the interview!

[PassedOut]

 Daniel1960, on 2014-December-30, 13:24, said:

I agree that we do not need exact solution. However, what evidence can you present that it will be very dangerous not to cut back on CO2 emissions? As you mention, modeling problems are very difficult to solve, and current models are woefully inadequate. Based on all this, the consequences of continued CO2 emissions are largely unknown.

Think of a couple of modeling problems we face every day at the bridge table. You can easily construct hands where no game can be made even with 30+ points, so we could call the point count model "woefully inadequate." But that doesn't mean that we should stop bidding three notrump with 25 points. We do not need an exact solution.

And then there is the law of total tricks. Even though it is very accurate on average, there is considerable variation in both directions, especially with greater numbers of trumps. So we could also call the law of total tricks model "woefully inadequate" (and some players do). But that doesn't mean that the model has no value in competitive bidding. We do not need an exact solution.

When we talk about climate change, the complexity of the models is very much greater than our simple bridge examples. It would be surprising indeed if people who lack the ability to see the bigger picture cannot latch onto and attribute great significance to minor anomalies.

Indeed, that failing is why Al_U_Card is just as convinced that the US government was complicit in the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 as he is that scientists are lying to everyone about climate change. If you go back and look at his posts on that topic, you'll see that he argues that position in the same way as he argues in this thread.

Because of the complexity of climate change itself, and because of its importance to the future of our planet, many scientists are working to reconcile actual measurements with the models needed to predict the future, and are working to improve those models constantly.

We've just lived through the warmest year in modern records: NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record.

Quote

Since 1880, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius), a trend that is largely driven by the increase in carbon dioxide and other human emissions into the planet’s atmosphere. The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades.

“This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades. While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.

Models predict that temperatures will continue to rise as CO₂ levels rise. That's what's happening. We do not need an exact solution.

Because the glaciers are melting as temperatures rise, the rise in sea levels is accelerating: Sea levels rising faster than previously thought says new study

Quote

IPCC scenarios, which range from a sea level rise of 28 to 98 cms this century, are based on the processes driving sea level change, for instance how ice in Greenland reacts to rising temperatures or the expansion of water as it warms, he said.

Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a world expert in past sea levels, said further analysis was needed to pin down 20th century sea level rise.

The new findings confirm that “sea level is rising and ... the rise has accelerated, with the most recent rates being the highest on record,” he told Reuters.

Sea level rise is gnawing away at shores from Miami to Shanghai. In cities such as Jakarta, the rise is aggravated by big local subsidence.

Models predict that the rise in sea levels will continue to accelerate as CO₂ levels rise. That's what's happening. We do not need an exact solution. If you don't believe that an accelerated increase in sea level is dangerous to mankind, I'd like to see your reasoning on that point.

[Al_U_Card]

Scratch the surface a little and...

"As usual, a brief perusal beyond the headlines reveals a considerably more nuanced story. The paper is based on tide gauge records and finds a slow increase over the 20th century of just over 1mm/year. This is rather less than some previous estimates.

However, the authors go on to say that:

Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010, consistent with prior estimates from tide gauge records4. The increase in rate relative to the 1901–90 trend is accordingly larger than previously thought; this revision may affect some projections11 of future sea-level rise.

I'm a bit bemused by this. Why would they use a different methodology for 1993-2010 to the one they used for 1901-90? Why would they want to combine data with "physics based and model-derived geometries"? Do the tide guages show any acceleration or not?

Perhaps the text of the paper will explain if someone can send it over or leave a comment.

Update on Jan 15, 2015 by Registered CommenterBishop Hill
OK, I have a copy of the paper now. The authors have used an infilling mechanism to estimate SLR from 1901 to 2010. They have used the same mechanism throughout.

So the validity of the findings seems to rest on the validity of the infilling methodology. The authors asks us to draw comfort from the similarity of their 21st century trend to the trend calculated by others (including the satellite records) but suggest that previous 20th century estimates are too high."

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2015-January-16, 13:14, said:

It would be surprising indeed if people who lack the ability to see the bigger picture cannot latch onto and attribute great significance to minor anomalies.

Indeed, that failing is why Al_U_Card is just as convinced that the US government was complicit in the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 as he is that scientists are lying to everyone about climate change. If you go back and look at his posts on that topic, you'll see that he argues that position in the same way as he argues in this thread.

Because of the complexity of climate change itself, and because of its importance to the future of our planet, many scientists are working to reconcile actual measurements with the models needed to predict the future, and are working to improve those models constantly.

We've just lived through the warmest year in modern records: NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record.


Models predict that temperatures will continue to rise as CO₂ levels rise. That's what's happening. We do not need an exact solution.

Because the glaciers are melting as temperatures rise, the rise in sea levels is accelerating: Sea levels rising faster than previously thought says new study


Models predict that the rise in sea levels will continue to accelerate as CO₂ levels rise. That's what's happening. We do not need an exact solution. If you don't believe that an accelerated increase in sea level is dangerous to mankind, I'd like to see your reasoning on that point.

So. when the charade of CO2-induced climate thermagheddon is finally seen through, will that mean that the US government was knowledgeable of and complicit with the WTC bombings/plane attacks, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin and just about every other power-play to involve them? Climate scientists are hardly lying, but they are playing the tune that has been paid for and that they solicit with their agendized approach to the study of global climate. Every aspect of this branch of science reeks of politicization. Error bars are omitted, conflicting information is avoided, theories are expounded as fact, it is totally ludicrous and frankly very disturbing that such a waste of resources can produce so little in the way of factual and pragmatic advice and information.

The SLR is not accelerating (except in modeled studies, based on GCMs that are stoked on CO2-induced warming) and neither are any of the other fears that are presented daily as a reminder to stop asking questions and to toe the line. That is why it is so easy to refute every one of these trumped-up explanations of our impending doom. NOAA itself listed this past year as only 48% likely to be the "Hottest year evah!" (Tm climastrology) which they show on the back pages of their State of the Climate analysis as "more unlikely than likely" and that is not just because the margin was well within the error limits of the measurement to say nothing of the actual range of global temperatures.

[Daniel1960]

 PassedOut, on 2015-January-16, 13:14, said:

Think of a couple of modeling problems we face every day at the bridge table. You can easily construct hands where no game can be made even with 30+ points, so we could call the point count model "woefully inadequate." But that doesn't mean that we should stop bidding three notrump with 25 points. We do not need an exact solution.

And then there is the law of total tricks. Even though it is very accurate on average, there is considerable variation in both directions, especially with greater numbers of trumps. So we could also call the law of total tricks model "woefully inadequate" (and some players do). But that doesn't mean that the model has no value in competitive bidding. We do not need an exact solution.

When we talk about climate change, the complexity of the models is very much greater than our simple bridge examples. It would be surprising indeed if people who lack the ability to see the bigger picture cannot latch onto and attribute great significance to minor anomalies.

Indeed, that failing is why Al_U_Card is just as convinced that the US government was complicit in the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 as he is that scientists are lying to everyone about climate change. If you go back and look at his posts on that topic, you'll see that he argues that position in the same way as he argues in this thread.

Because of the complexity of climate change itself, and because of its importance to the future of our planet, many scientists are working to reconcile actual measurements with the models needed to predict the future, and are working to improve those models constantly.

We've just lived through the warmest year in modern records: NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record.


Models predict that temperatures will continue to rise as CO₂ levels rise. That's what's happening. We do not need an exact solution.

Because the glaciers are melting as temperatures rise, the rise in sea levels is accelerating: Sea levels rising faster than previously thought says new study


Models predict that the rise in sea levels will continue to accelerate as CO₂ levels rise. That's what's happening. We do not need an exact solution. If you don't believe that an accelerated increase in sea level is dangerous to mankind, I'd like to see your reasoning on that point.

Agreed that the Earth's climate is much more complex than the bridge table, and that the models must be more complex also. That is why the validity of the models is much less accurate than the bridge models. The models are a good starting point, but as you mentioned, are not entirely accurate. Because we do not need an exact solution, many possibilities have been suggested. Which would work best is largely guesswork, at this time.

Many models have predicted an accelerated rise in temperature and sea level rise. That is not happening. The temperature rise has slowed, since the turn of the century. This is in direct contrast to predicted acceleration. Obviously, much more is involved than just carbon dioxide concentrations. As shown, sea level has continued on its recent trajectory for almost 90 years now. A few wiggles in the increase, but no overall change to the trend.

The claim of warmest year on record is somewhat contentuous. Different agencies have yielded different valules. The results are somewhat like such: ocean temperatures (calculations) were the warmest on record, land surface temperatures (thermometer readings) were the 4th warmest, and atmospheric temperatures (satellite data) were the 6th warmest. In reality, one year does not make a trend. We still need to look at all the data, and the temperature rise is still much less in recent years than in the past.

Scientists are not lying, whether they are promoting accelerated climate change or no climate change. They are simply putting greater faith in various forms of data analysis to arrive at their conclusions.

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of looking at all of the data, this just in from Sicre et al 2014.





As you can clearly see, a gradual decline in temperatures that continues to present with a moderate fluctuation that is well within normal variation. I wonder why this great news has not seen press coverage????

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2015-January-22, 09:14, said:

Speaking of looking at all of the data, this just in from Sicre et al 2014.





As you can clearly see, a gradual decline in temperatures that continues to present with a moderate fluctuation that is well within normal variation. I wonder why this great news has not seen press coverage????

Because cherry picking examples is more akin to intellectual masturbation than analysis...

[PassedOut]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-January-22, 07:01, said:

As shown, sea level has continued on its recent trajectory for almost 90 years now. A few wiggles in the increase, but no overall change to the trend.

I get that you favor a straight-line model for sea-level rise, but better measurements contradict your model.

Suppose someone brings you a certified gallon container and tells you that three other people have already added a quart of water. Your task is to fill the gallon with a quart of your own. Being a very precise person, you make absolutely sure that your quart container is accurate and completely filled. When you add your quart to the gallon, the container is not filled. Wouldn't you conclude that the gallon container did not really hold three quarts of water when you got it?

That's essentially the argument supporting the acceleration of sea level rise. And the findings match the satellite measurements that have been made for the last couple of decades.

Sea Level Rise Accelerating Faster Than Thought

Quote

Estimates of sea level rise, particularly before about 1990, when satellites came into service, have relied on the records of tide gauges scattered unevenly around the world. From those records, scientists have estimated rates of 1.6 to 1.9 millimeters per year of global sea level rise for the 20th century.

For the past couple of decades, when satellites have been able to take more accurate measurements, the rate is estimated at about 3 millimeters per year. (Part of the reason for the acceleration is that it takes more heat to raise the temperature of water than air and more time is needed to transport that heat into the deep ocean.)

Hay didn’t actually set out to challenge these established estimates of sea level rise. She and her team were hoping to find the telltale signatures of glacier melt in tide gauge records, using statistical methods that hadn’t been applied to the issue of sea level rise before. They figured out that they could use those same methods to estimate global sea level rise. When they tried it, they realized “that we didn’t get the same thing” as the established estimates, Hay said.

Instead, their range was lower, from 1.0 to 1.4 millimeters per year from 1901 to 1990.

“We were definitely surprised,” Hay said. Thinking perhaps she had made an error, “I spent a while looking for bugs in my code.”

But when the team tried a different method, they got the same numbers.

Those lower estimates of sea level rise up to 1990 also happened to solve a seeming problem with previous estimates. When scientists tallied the contributions to sea level rise from glacial melt, thermal expansion and other sources, they didn’t match the global average rise. But Hay’s estimates did match the tally.

The team’s new estimates for the period since 1990 also matched those from the more accurate satellite records.

If Hay and her colleagues are right, what that means is that combining their new lower estimate of sea level rise until 1990 with the higher rate since then gives an overall faster acceleration of the rate of that rise since the early 20th century.

Evidence shows that your straight-line model for sea-level rise is unlikely to be correct. I still haven't seen your reasoning on why rising sea levels aren't dangerous for mankind.

[Al_U_Card]

[Daniel1960]

 PassedOut, on 2015-January-22, 17:38, said:

I get that you favor a straight-line model for sea-level rise, but better measurements contradict your model.

Suppose someone brings you a certified gallon container and tells you that three other people have already added a quart of water. Your task is to fill the gallon with a quart of your own. Being a very precise person, you make absolutely sure that your quart container is accurate and completely filled. When you add your quart to the gallon, the container is not filled. Wouldn't you conclude that the gallon container did not really hold three quarts of water when you got it?

That's essentially the argument supporting the acceleration of sea level rise. And the findings match the satellite measurements that have been made for the last couple of decades.

Sea Level Rise Accelerating Faster Than Thought


Evidence shows that your straight-line model for sea-level rise is unlikely to be correct. I still haven't seen your reasoning on why rising sea levels aren't dangerous for mankind.

With your analogy, I suspect someone was using a different measurement device. The same would be true with sea level measurements. View this graph of sea level rise, using a similar metric, for the past two centuries. Can you confidently say that there has been acceleration since ~1880?

http://www.psmsl.org...ons/figure1.gif

Sea level rise is both slow and predictable. The oceans have been rising and falling at various locations throughout history. People have been moving into and out of these areas continuously, and this will not change in the future. This is not a danger to mankind.

http://iopscience.io...326/9/10/104008

[PassedOut]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-January-23, 13:25, said:

 PassedOut, on 2015-January-22, 17:38, said:

Suppose someone brings you a certified gallon container and tells you that three other people have already added a quart of water. Your task is to fill the gallon with a quart of your own. Being a very precise person, you make absolutely sure that your quart container is accurate and completely filled. When you add your quart to the gallon, the container is not filled. Wouldn't you conclude that the gallon container did not really hold three quarts of water when you got it?

I suspect someone was using a different measurement device. The same would be true with sea level measurements.

Exactly. And the measurement devices being used before were less accurate.

I live by Lake Superior, and I can tell you that measuring the level of the lake to the precision of 1mm is an incredibly difficult task. The lake is never calm, the lakebed is constantly shifting, and the shorelines are constantly eroding. Just as importantly, no one has ever had the need to measure the lake level to that degree of accuracy.

For the oceans, with tides and shifting currents, the problem of measuring sea level to that degree of accuracy is still more difficult. Nor have folks in the past had the need for the kind of accuracy we are talking about here. Since the early 1990s, we've had more accurate ways of measuring the rising sea level and those measurements support an acceleration in the increase of sea levels.

Predictions of the future depend upon models, and those models must be adjusted as more and better measurements come in. Your straight-line model relies on inaccurate measurements that were never intended for that purpose. The accelerated model relies on more accurate measurements taken to solve the problem at hand. That's the bottom line.

Now, as to your view that rising sea levels pose no danger to mankind, let's go to the first sentence in the paper you referenced to support your position: Upper limit for sea level projections by 2100

Quote

We construct the probability density function of global sea level at 2100, estimating that sea level rises larger than 180 cm are less than 5% probable.

That's six feet. Seems to me that a rise of three feet will be very dangerous to many people. Why do you think it won't be?

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps the temperature projections are...uh...not quite in the right direction for further accelerating increases?

Yet more adjustments...







Now that's a big cherry!

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2015-January-24, 12:13, said:

Now, as to your view that rising sea levels pose no danger to mankind, let's go to the first sentence in the paper you referenced to support your position: Upper limit for sea level projections by 2100


That's six feet. Seems to me that a rise of three feet will be very dangerous to many people. Why do you think it won't be?

Or maybe something factual like observations from down-under (not yet under-water...lol)

[Daniel1960]

 PassedOut, on 2015-January-24, 12:13, said:

Exactly. And the measurement devices being used before were less accurate.

I live by Lake Superior, and I can tell you that measuring the level of the lake to the precision of 1mm is an incredibly difficult task. The lake is never calm, the lakebed is constantly shifting, and the shorelines are constantly eroding. Just as importantly, no one has ever had the need to measure the lake level to that degree of accuracy.

For the oceans, with tides and shifting currents, the problem of measuring sea level to that degree of accuracy is still more difficult. Nor have folks in the past had the need for the kind of accuracy we are talking about here. Since the early 1990s, we've had more accurate ways of measuring the rising sea level and those measurements support an acceleration in the increase of sea levels.

Predictions of the future depend upon models, and those models must be adjusted as more and better measurements come in. Your straight-line model relies on inaccurate measurements that were never intended for that purpose. The accelerated model relies on more accurate measurements taken to solve the problem at hand. That's the bottom line.

Now, as to your view that rising sea levels pose no danger to mankind, let's go to the first sentence in the paper you referenced to support your position: Upper limit for sea level projections by 2100


That's six feet. Seems to me that a rise of three feet will be very dangerous to many people. Why do you think it won't be?

That is an upper limit. It does not mention three feet, although that might be worrisome.

Looking at the satellite measurements (from three different satellites), I can see no acceleration over the entire measurement period.

http://sealevel.colo...l_ns_global.png

I agree that the previous measurements (tide gauges) were not accurate to 1 mm (or anywhere close). However, since neither the tide gause measurements, nor the satellites show any change in slope, what evidence do you have that sea level rise is accelerating? Is there other data going into the model to which you refer? Assuming their measurement is accurate (3.2 mm/yr), that amounts to another 260 mm (26 cm) by the year 2100. That is less than one foot, which does not worry me.

If I remember correctly, we determined that you were a Yooper and I was a troll?