2015 Warmest Year on Record

[takethepoints]

I seldom intervene over here, as you people well know. But I noticed something.

I just went back 5 pages in this thread and checked the links. There was not one link to the actual papers making what the journalists thought were points about climate change. Here's the one about the consequences of a "dying Gulf Stream":

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601666.full

Doesn't read fraudulent at all, does it? In fact, the conclusions are, as is usual in scientific work, carefully limited to what their data seem to be telling them. And they readily admit to the limitations in their work.

Journalists are not scientists and the ones who work for tendentious publications are even less so then the folks at the NYT. Indeed, what most of their articles tell us about the original papers is well covered in this classic xkcd:

https://xkcd.com/882/

Yep. Green jelly beans cause acne alright.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I seldom intervene over here, as you people well know. But I noticed something.

I just went back 5 pages in this thread and checked the links. There was not one link to the actual papers making what the journalists thought were points about climate change. Here's the one about the consequences of a "dying Gulf Stream":

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601666.full

Doesn't read fraudulent at all, does it? In fact, the conclusions are, as is usual in scientific work, carefully limited to what their data seem to be telling them. And they readily admit to the limitations in their work.

Journalists are not scientists and the ones who work for tendentious publications are even less so then the folks at the NYT. Indeed, what most of their articles tell us about the original papers is well covered in this classic xkcd:

https://xkcd.com/882/

Yep. Green jelly beans cause acne alright.

I appreciate that these studies stipulate the huge amount of uncertainty and variability exists in their models.

I think the models are very valuable in providing some insights into climate possibilities. But no certain or even likely conclusions can be made scientifically.

Yet that’s what we see AGW alarmist scientists, politicians, and “journalists”,!do over and over again.

See....https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...-study-finds-slowing-ocean-could-mean-n865516

“Global warning is leading to the next Ice Age”

Possible? Yeah sure. Likely? Hell no. And vast sums of taxes and or government funding to fix these uncertainties is negligent, stupid, and without sound scientific basis.

 

[awbuzz]

... So what on God's green earth were we doing in 1850 that affected climate change enough to slow down the Gulf Stream? ...

Isn't it obvious? We had too many big ships in the ocean causing it to slow down!

 

[awbuzz]

I seldom intervene over here, as you people well know. But I noticed something.

I just went back 5 pages in this thread and checked the links. There was not one link to the actual papers making what the journalists thought were points about climate change. Here's the one about the consequences of a "dying Gulf Stream":

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601666.full

Doesn't read fraudulent at all, does it? In fact, the conclusions are, as is usual in scientific work, carefully limited to what their data seem to be telling them. And they readily admit to the limitations in their work.

Journalists are not scientists and the ones who work for tendentious publications are even less so then the folks at the NYT. Indeed, what most of their articles tell us about the original papers is well covered in this classic xkcd:

https://xkcd.com/882/

Yep. Green jelly beans cause acne alright.

Does this mean that if we just dump some salt into the Atlantic (increase salinity) that teh problem will go away?

"The same model simulates an AMOC collapse with a large 1-sverdrup (1 sverdrup = 106 m3/s) freshwater pulse (14) that mimics major ice-sheet discharges into the North Atlantic in paleoclimate observations. The AMOC collapse is primarily caused by a halinely induced reduction of surface buoyancy (see fig. S6F and Materials and Methods for details) associated with an extreme freshening in the northern North Atlantic and GIN seas (fig. S6L). On the other hand, the current study uses a more realistic setting, that is, the CO2 increase for future global warming. The AMOC shutdown under global warming is primarily caused by a thermally induced buoyancy reduction (fig. S6B). The resultant buoyancy change (fig. S6A) is about one order of magnitude smaller (~0.1 sverdrup) than that in the hosing experiment (fig. S6D). Another important difference between the global warming and hosing scenarios is the response of atmospheric moisture transport from the Atlantic to the Pacific across Central America. Under global warming, the moisture transport intensifies because of atmospheric moisture increase, a negative feedback that increases Atlantic salinity (31) and stabilizes the AMOC (32–34). However, this mechanism is generally absent in the hosing experiments (34)."

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Does this mean that if we just dump some salt into the Atlantic (increase salinity) that teh problem will go away?

"The same model simulates an AMOC collapse with a large 1-sverdrup (1 sverdrup = 106 m3/s) freshwater pulse (14) that mimics major ice-sheet discharges into the North Atlantic in paleoclimate observations. The AMOC collapse is primarily caused by a halinely induced reduction of surface buoyancy (see fig. S6F and Materials and Methods for details) associated with an extreme freshening in the northern North Atlantic and GIN seas (fig. S6L). On the other hand, the current study uses a more realistic setting, that is, the CO2 increase for future global warming. The AMOC shutdown under global warming is primarily caused by a thermally induced buoyancy reduction (fig. S6B). The resultant buoyancy change (fig. S6A) is about one order of magnitude smaller (~0.1 sverdrup) than that in the hosing experiment (fig. S6D). Another important difference between the global warming and hosing scenarios is the response of atmospheric moisture transport from the Atlantic to the Pacific across Central America. Under global warming, the moisture transport intensifies because of atmospheric moisture increase, a negative feedback that increases Atlantic salinity (31) and stabilizes the AMOC (32–34). However, this mechanism is generally absent in the hosing experiments (34)."

There is currently a lot of salt in Athens leftover from the CFB. uGA could single handedly speed up the Gulf Stream!

 

[takethepoints]

I think the models are very valuable in providing some insights into climate possibilities. But no certain or even likely conclusions can be made scientifically.

Yet that’s what we see AGW alarmist scientists, politicians, and “journalists”,!do over and over again.

See....https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...-study-finds-slowing-ocean-could-mean-n865516

“Global warning is leading to the next Ice Age”

Possible? Yeah sure. Likely? Hell no. And vast sums of taxes and or government funding to fix these uncertainties is negligent, stupid, and without sound scientific basis.

You're right, but I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Not taking action to stall - we can't prevent it now - global warming is a bet. The bet is that by not taking the kind of action needed now we will have higher levels of economic growth and, as a consequence, will be rich enough to afford the drastic measures that may be necessary later. And, if it turns out that the consequences of warming aren't as bad as predicted, we'll be even richer.

But, imho, the other side of the bet is really dangerous. What if the consequences of global warming are not only catastrophic, but quick acting? Then we may reach a tripping point for climate change that will be beyond human power to prevent and end up with a global economic and demographic catastrophe that could wipe out 1/4 of humanity through displacement, starvation, and economic disruption.

It's sort of like getting health insurance when you are young. You're pretty bullet-proof before 30 and the expense of the insurance is demanding a choice that you may not want to make. Oth, if you catch, say, cancer and don't have the insurance, then your life going forward will be severely curtailed.

I have a lot less trust in our ability to come up with technical fixes for global warming and I don't doubt the existence of the phenomena. So I'm not sanguine enough to take the long side of the bet. I'd do something now, even if the result is lower economic growth. But the long side, while more risky, is plausible; we don't really know what the long term effects of global warming are or how soon and how drastically they'll appear. But … once the Rose ice shelf is gone, we are well and truly screwed. I'm willing to do anything in reason to stop - or at least delay - that.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I have a lot less trust in our ability to come up with technical fixes for global warming and I don't doubt the existence of the phenomena. So I'm not sanguine enough to take the long side of the bet. I'd do something now, even if the result is lower economic growth. But the long side, while more risky, is plausible; we don't really know what the long term effects of global warming are or how soon and how drastically they'll appear. But … once the Rose ice shelf is gone, we are well and truly screwed. I'm willing to do anything in reason to stop - or at least delay - that.

But that's just it - suggestions from these same scientists that advocate for doing something predict a reduction in temperature of about 0.2 degrees (if every single country adhered absolutely strictly to the Paris Agreement). When all your temperature measurements and science behind it are imprecise and corrupted enough that 0.2 is lost in rounding error, then what really is the point?
Source of the 0.2: https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015 Energy & Climate Outlook.pdf
Exact quote from MIT in that article: "Assuming the proposed cuts under the Paris Agreement are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century."

I don't see the point. I mean I see the point from the other side - more taxes and government control and they strengthen their relationship to their global warming religion. But I don't see the point from a practical point of view.

 

[takethepoints]

Source of the 0.2: https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015 Energy & Climate Outlook.pdf
Exact quote from MIT in that article: "Assuming the proposed cuts under the Paris Agreement are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century."

I don't see the point. I mean I see the point from the other side - more taxes and government control and they strengthen their relationship to their global warming religion. But I don't see the point from a practical point of view.

But what the report - really good, btw - says is that what we put in place in Paris isn't enough to keep to the 2ºC targets and will probably have to be revisited after 2030. We can't stop warming in its tracks now, but we can keep it within bounds. And, yes, that would take some more regulation and, probably, tax incentives that'll shift some costs. Of course, if we are lucky and make a fusion breakthrough soon enough, all this will be immaterial. But I really wouldn't bet on that.

I didn't see any religious aspects to the report either.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

But what the report - really good, btw - says is that what we put in place in Paris isn't enough to keep to the 2ºC targets and will probably have to be revisited after 2030. We can't stop warming in its tracks now, but we can keep it within bounds. And, yes, that would take some more regulation and, probably, tax incentives that'll shift some costs. Of course, if we are lucky and make a fusion breakthrough soon enough, all this will be immaterial. But I really wouldn't bet on that.

I didn't see any religious aspects to the report either.

I used the phrase “religious” because there is no factual basis behind the movement. Their own data says the changes the world agreed upon will only impact the temperature 0.2 degrees (massive reductions in CO2 targets mind you - 30% to 50%+ reductions in CO2 emissions depending on the country). Whether it’s warm or cold, dry or wet, chaotic or calm - global warming is the explanation for everything. It’s their religion, and they have faith behind their views - not science or data.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

You're right, but I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Not taking action to stall - we can't prevent it now - global warming is a bet. The bet is that by not taking the kind of action needed now we will have higher levels of economic growth and, as a consequence, will be rich enough to afford the drastic measures that may be necessary later. And, if it turns out that the consequences of warming aren't as bad as predicted, we'll be even richer.

But, imho, the other side of the bet is really dangerous. What if the consequences of global warming are not only catastrophic, but quick acting? Then we may reach a tripping point for climate change that will be beyond human power to prevent and end up with a global economic and demographic catastrophe that could wipe out 1/4 of humanity through displacement, starvation, and economic disruption.

It's sort of like getting health insurance when you are young. You're pretty bullet-proof before 30 and the expense of the insurance is demanding a choice that you may not want to make. Oth, if you catch, say, cancer and don't have the insurance, then your life going forward will be severely curtailed.

I have a lot less trust in our ability to come up with technical fixes for global warming and I don't doubt the existence of the phenomena. So I'm not sanguine enough to take the long side of the bet. I'd do something now, even if the result is lower economic growth. But the long side, while more risky, is plausible; we don't really know what the long term effects of global warming are or how soon and how drastically they'll appear. But … once the Rose ice shelf is gone, we are well and truly screwed. I'm willing to do anything in reason to stop - or at least delay - that.

It is completely illogical to expend a huge economic cost on an issue no one can prove is an actual climate risk. Donate your entire paycheck if you want to the cause. But don’t blow my tax revenue on an unverified fear. And don’t cripple our economy with silly power production restrictions.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

But what the report - really good, btw - says is that what we put in place in Paris isn't enough to keep to the 2ºC targets and will probably have to be revisited after 2030. We can't stop warming in its tracks now, but we can keep it within bounds. And, yes, that would take some more regulation and, probably, tax incentives that'll shift some costs. Of course, if we are lucky and make a fusion breakthrough soon enough, all this will be immaterial. But I really wouldn't bet on that.

I didn't see any religious aspects to the report either.

None of the models this BS is based on are accurate. At all. They have never had an accurate forecast. Ever. And can’t even replicate past weather / climate accurately after the fact.

It’s bogus science with regards to actually making predictions.

 

[FredJacket]

What is the "global condition" we seek? What is optimum? Are current 'global' temperatures optimal? or was it better/best 50 years ago? ...or was it 1 million years ago? Is goal to extend "human life" as long as possible? Is it to extend it with the current global population or some other number? Is it optimal to have sea levels at current levels or a different level? Am I crazy or should we not define these things before demanding action one way or the other... who knows? ... all this human caused climate change could be (theoretically) speeding us up to optimum. Would that not make some heads explode?

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

2,000 years ago the earth was 2 degrees warmer than it is today. There was no mass population die off then. The world did not come to an end, the Polar Bears did not go extinct. Even if they are correct and we do warm up by 2 degrees, so what.
Been there done that. The extra CO2 will enhance plant growth. The weather patterns will shift but the whole planet will not turn into a dry sandy beach.

But I don't have much faith in their models and think the warming will be less. Throw in the maunder minimum over the next 50 years and things may indeed get very interesting.

 

[takethepoints]

None of the models this BS is based on are accurate. At all. They have never had an accurate forecast. Ever. And can’t even replicate past weather / climate accurately after the fact.

It’s bogus science with regards to actually making predictions.

It's like Niels Bohr said: "Prediction is difficult, particularly about the future."

If we have to wait for perfect predictions, then we may as well give up science as well as engineering. These are estimates made about stochastic systems that we don't understand very well. Problem = there is one prediction that holds true: things are getting warmer every year. The trend is established. We have a pretty good idea what's behind the trend. If we decide not to do something - and fast - the trend will get more acute. That's really all we need either scientifically or policy-wise to make decisions. What this information doesn't tell us, unfortunately, is all the important stuff: How long do we have? How big are the effects going to be within various time spans? What more could we do? How much will this cost? Without that, it's hard to make a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

That's why I called this a bet. I don't like the short side.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

It's like Niels Bohr said: "Prediction is difficult, particularly about the future."

If we have to wait for perfect predictions, then we may as well give up science as well as engineering. These are estimates made about stochastic systems that we don't understand very well. Problem = there is one prediction that holds true: things are getting warmer every year. The trend is established. We have a pretty good idea what's behind the trend. If we decide not to do something - and fast - the trend will get more acute. That's really all we need either scientifically or policy-wise to make decisions. What this information doesn't tell us, unfortunately, is all the important stuff: How long do we have? How big are the effects going to be within various time spans? What more could we do? How much will this cost? Without that, it's hard to make a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

That's why I called this a bet. I don't like the short side.

Gamble with your own money not mine. There is no reason to think anything dire will occur if we simply do......nothing at all. No runaway greenhouse effect, no nada. Weather and climate have and always will fluctuate. This does not equate to anything close to an emergency of any sort.

 

[takethepoints]

Update: See

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...its-potentially-world-changing-fusion-reactor

Sooooooo … directly, if we are incredibly lucky, this entire controversy will be moot, fossil fuel companies will be out of the energy production business and replaced by Lockheed, energy will be available everywhere, and Tom McGuire will be the most famous engineer since Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Let's hope McGuire is right.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It's like Niels Bohr said: "Prediction is difficult, particularly about the future."

If we have to wait for perfect predictions, then we may as well give up science as well as engineering. These are estimates made about stochastic systems that we don't understand very well. Problem = there is one prediction that holds true: things are getting warmer every year. The trend is established. We have a pretty good idea what's behind the trend. If we decide not to do something - and fast - the trend will get more acute. That's really all we need either scientifically or policy-wise to make decisions. What this information doesn't tell us, unfortunately, is all the important stuff: How long do we have? How big are the effects going to be within various time spans? What more could we do? How much will this cost? Without that, it's hard to make a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

That's why I called this a bet. I don't like the short side.

You make a lot of sense and a lot of good points. However, if a 30%-50% reduction in CO2 (depending on which country you are, per the Paris Agreement) only nets approximately 0.2 degrees, then what is the point?

 

[MWBATL]

It's like Niels Bohr said: "Prediction is difficult, particularly about the future."

If we have to wait for perfect predictions, then we may as well give up science as well as engineering. These are estimates made about stochastic systems that we don't understand very well. Problem = there is one prediction that holds true: things are getting warmer every year. The trend is established. We have a pretty good idea what's behind the trend. If we decide not to do something - and fast - the trend will get more acute. That's really all we need either scientifically or policy-wise to make decisions. What this information doesn't tell us, unfortunately, is all the important stuff: How long do we have? How big are the effects going to be within various time spans? What more could we do? How much will this cost? Without that, it's hard to make a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

That's why I called this a bet. I don't like the short side.

Malthusean pessimists have been predicting global catastrophe for a couple of centuries at least.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Malthusean pessimists have been predicting global catastrophe for a couple of centuries at least.

Weren’t the most recent batch of numerologists claiming today was the day of the rapture. If so all of my family, friends, and myself missed the cut.

 

[AE 87]

Weren’t the most recent batch of numerologists claiming today was the day of the rapture. If so all of my family, friends, and myself missed the cut.

Actually, it's supposed to happen while I am writi