So about that climate "Pause"......

[sandorski]

They tell me that you've neglected to mention that the IPCC have revised their estimates each and every time they have convened.

Awesome predictions. :thumbsup:

.....and again.

 

[Paratus]

They tell me that you've neglected to mention that the IPCC have revised their estimates each and every time they have convened.

Awesome predictions. :thumbsup:

You see science isn't like the bible. When we find something wrong or inaccurate with our theories we fix them. This is the major strength of science and is a feature not a bug. Hell they even provide the error bars so you can tell how accurate they are.

I'll also point out all predictions have been for positive warming. Not neutral and not decreasing. Observations have borne this out.

I really don't understand why our understanding is threatening to you.

 

[Jaskalas]

I really don't understand why our...

I have to imagine any opposition, if claiming to be scientific, is based on using the Satellite data as a replacement for Surface data. That is the origin of the pause, and the notion that models are so far removed. That the predictions are somehow bunk and being "forced" towards the "reality" of the Satellite data.

If GISS stands, then surely there's no room for contest.

 

[Paratus]

I have to imagine any opposition, if claiming to be scientific, is based on using the Satellite data as a replacement for Surface data. That is the origin of the pause, and the notion that models are so far removed. That the predictions are somehow bunk and being "forced" towards the "reality" of the Satellite data.

If GISS stands, then surely there's no room for contest.

Your maybe right. But TLC seems like he's incensed that any of us claim to know what's going on. Very strange.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You see science isn't like the bible. When we find something wrong or inaccurate with our theories we fix them. This is the major strength of science and is a feature not a bug. Hell they even provide the error bars so you can tell how accurate they are.

I'll also point out all predictions have been for positive warming. Not neutral and not decreasing. Observations have borne this out.

I really don't understand why our understanding is threatening to you.

You see, I am not religious, so the bible reference has zero meaning to me, and I find it another instance of pure arrogance. along with a slice of idiocy.

Try again without the douchbagyness.

 

[Paratus]

You see, I am not religious, so the bible reference has zero meaning to me, and I find it another instance of pure arrogance. along with a slice of idiocy.

Try again without the douchbagyness.

Fine. Your expectations that predictions won't change with time is wrong. The models become more accurate as time goes on as they eliminate uncertainties and perform new studies. This is how science works.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Fine. Your expectations that predictions won't change with time is wrong. The models become more accurate as time goes on as they eliminate uncertainties and perform new studies. This is how science works.

It's how science works for many scientific fields. Climate isn't one of them at this point. We simply don't have all of the variables in place yet. Climate science is severely complex, maybe far more complex than most sciences we understand today. I'll put it this way. If it was as simple as CO2 we would have a grasp on the situation. If it were as simple as CO2 and methane, we would have a grasp.

We don't have a grasp of the situation. No matter how you want to avoid that fact, it IS a fact. Models suck. We don't know what is going on. It is NOT as simple as CO2.

There is a complexity that we don't yet comprehend. If we can admit there is a middle ground instead of taking one extreme or the other maybe there can be some progress in resolving the issues? Until then everyone will be partisan shills calling people "deniers."

 

[MongGrel]

And ever single solid metric involving climate being explored these days that I have seen reveals things might all ready be worse than expected.

 

[Darwin333]

I start worrying about the deficit when those on left start caring about it.

So... until other people care about something you couldn't give a shit about said something?

Basically you only care about things that other people care about. So if the majority care about single payer healthcare you are for it? If the majority care about cutting .mil spending to a quarter of what it is today you are with them? If the majority want to institute Islam as the national religion you are ok with that?

 

[sandorski]

A feel good report on the subject. Might be a little too optimistic, but shows that a transition is happening.

 

[Paratus]

It's how science works for many scientific fields. Climate isn't one of them at this point. We simply don't have all of the variables in place yet. Climate science is severely complex, maybe far more complex than most sciences we understand today. I'll put it this way. If it was as simple as CO2 we would have a grasp on the situation. If it were as simple as CO2 and methane, we would have a grasp.

We don't have a grasp of the situation. No matter how you want to avoid that fact, it IS a fact. Models suck. We don't know what is going on. It is NOT as simple as CO2.

There is a complexity that we don't yet comprehend. If we can admit there is a middle ground instead of taking one extreme or the other maybe there can be some progress in resolving the issues? Until then everyone will be partisan shills calling people "deniers."

I see a lot of declaritive statements there without any backing. My own education and career directly contradict your statements. It's obvious you don't know much about how the climate is modeled or you wouldn't be claiming there are gaping unknowns that we don't know about in our knowledge.

I suggest following the links here to learn about how climate works and how we know how it works. It's written at a roughly bachelors of science level.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

Take a look and the come back with your questions.

 

[dphantom]

The science is oh so not settled. So do not be a "believer". There is so much we simply do not yet understand about climate to make any long term predictions over what this planets climate will be like 10, 50 or 100 years from now. All we know for sure right now is that we are warming after the LIA, that humans are probably having some effect and that effect, among many others, is not yet well understood. The basic physics are understood but the accurate application is only scratching the surface.

There was no pause (Karl, et al)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full


There was a pause (Fyfe, et al)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

There was no pause (Mears & Wentz)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R

 

[bshole]

You see science isn't like the bible. When we find something wrong or inaccurate with our theories we fix them. This is the major strength of science and is a feature not a bug. Hell they even provide the error bars so you can tell how accurate they are.

Well that is the rub isn't it. If you make trillion dollar economic decisions based on science that is proven to be rubbish 50 years from now, you cannot take back all that human suffering that you inflicted for no reason. How do scientists 50 years from now saying "oops we wrong after all" help any of us today?

It is irksome to see the absolute frenzied rush to meddle with our fragile economy long before any real evidence indicates something bad/threatening happening.

 

[bshole]

The science is oh so not settled. So do not be a "believer". There is so much we simply do not yet understand about climate to make any long term predictions over what this planets climate will be like 10, 50 or 100 years from now. All we know for sure right now is that we are warming after the LIA, that humans are probably having some effect and that effect, among many others, is not yet well understood. The basic physics are understood but the accurate application is only scratching the surface.

Yup..... and that doesn't even address if the warming is good/bad/neutral and why...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I see a lot of declaritive statements there without any backing. My own education and career directly contradict your statements. It's obvious you don't know much about how the climate is modeled or you wouldn't be claiming there are gaping unknowns that we don't know about in our knowledge.

I suggest following the links here to learn about how climate works and how we know how it works. It's written at a roughly bachelors of science level.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

Take a look and the come back with your questions.

Our knowledge of clouds is surprisingly quite minimal and it's one of the largest uncertainties affecting climate change predictions.

Here's a table of IPCC's uncertainty levels regarding radiative forcing. Please note that many major forcing mechanisms with strong to medium evidence also have medium to low scientific consensus as well as medium to low level of scientific understanding (LOSU). Perhaps the phrase 'gaping unknowns' is more accurate than not.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

 

[bshole]

Our knowledge of clouds is surprisingly quite minimal and it's one of the largest uncertainties affecting climate change predictions.

Here's a table of IPCC's uncertainty levels regarding radiative forcing. Please note that many major forcing mechanisms with strong to medium evidence also have medium to low scientific consensus as well as medium to low level of scientific understanding (LOSU). Perhaps the phrase 'gaping unknowns' is more accurate than not.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

Then how in the heck do they get away with the "settled science" nonsense? They publish the fact that it not settled and the message that gets sent around the world is that it is settled.

 

[Paratus]

Our knowledge of clouds is surprisingly quite minimal and it's one of the largest uncertainties affecting climate change predictions.

Here's a table of IPCC's uncertainty levels regarding radiative forcing. Please note that many major forcing mechanisms with strong to medium evidence also have medium to low scientific consensus as well as medium to low level of scientific understanding (LOSU). Perhaps the phrase 'gaping unknowns' is more accurate than not.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

I completely agree that clouds have a large uncertainty. In fact the forcings graphic I posted above shows that. What's interesting though is even the maximum cooling it may provide isn't enough to offset warming.

Or to put it more succinctly the IPCC uncertainties you linked to aren't enough to forecast cooling even if they all broke that way. Of course none of the observations shows anything but increasing warming globally.

 

[Paratus]

Well that is the rub isn't it. If you make trillion dollar economic decisions based on science that is proven to be rubbish 50 years from now, you cannot take back all that human suffering that you inflicted for no reason. How do scientists 50 years from now saying "oops we wrong after all" help any of us today?

It is irksome to see the absolute frenzied rush to meddle with our fragile economy long before any real evidence indicates something bad/threatening happening.

We already cut about 40-50% of our coal usage and replaced it with natural gas, wind and solar over the last 10 years. I believe your be made quite a bit of money during that time so the change obviously didn't bankrupt you. :hmm:

 

[Paratus]

The science is oh so not settled. So do not be a "believer". There is so much we simply do not yet understand about climate to make any long term predictions over what this planets climate will be like 10, 50 or 100 years from now. All we know for sure right now is that we are warming after the LIA, that humans are probably having some effect and that effect, among many others, is not yet well understood. The basic physics are understood but the accurate application is only scratching the surface.

There was no pause (Karl, et al)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full


There was a pause (Fyfe, et al)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

There was no pause (Mears & Wentz)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R

No links about Miami Beach. Ah well.

 

[Moonbeam]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160128113819.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160203085840.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160208124855.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118064733.htm

 

[dphantom]

I think we are quite safe. The second link is NOAA official data. The tides and current page is an excellent source of actual data.

About the Marshall Islands sinking into the Pacific...not
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6196/496.summary

Miami from NOAA data - < 1'/100 years
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8723170

Added Key West as the Miami Beach tide gauge was shut down in 1983. Key West is not that far away so should be a good proxy. Also <1'/100 years
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8724580

Link to recent paper on sea level rise in ocean basins.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JC010180/abstract

 

[Paratus]

I think we are quite safe. The second link is NOAA official data. The tides and current page is an excellent source of actual data.

About the Marshall Islands sinking into the Pacific...not
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6196/496.summary

Miami from NOAA data - < 1'/100 years
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8723170

Added Key West as the Miami Beach tide gauge was shut down in 1983. Key West is not that far away so should be a good proxy. Also <1'/100 years
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8724580

Link to recent paper on sea level rise in ocean basins.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JC010180/abstract

Thanks for the links to the tide gauges.


While you may feel we are safe and that 1ft of sea level rise over a century isn't a big deal, the elected officials who run Miami Beach and surrounding areas don't agree to the tune of about $400,000,000.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/opinions/sutter-miami-beach-survive-climate/

CNN: I got some comments with people saying this isn't climate change, this isn't happening. This is just the coast of Florida and of course it floods sometimes. How certain are you that what you see happening now is climate change?

We're a local government. We have to be responsible. These things are happening. And so that argument really doesn't happen in South Florida anymore. It's about actually doing something about.

CNN: Marco Rubio is from South Florida and is a Republican presidential contender. And I would say he's injecting a lot of false doubt into the climate conversation. I'm wondering what you think about that -- or about the election as a whole?

As a local government appointed official, I'm not going to get into too much of the politics of it. But the science is there. These things are happening. And whoever gets in office needs to understand that these are issues that are facing these communities. We need the help and the coordination from the state and the feds. Right now it's really the local governments that are stepping up to this. ... It's not a partisan issue down here.

CNN: Is this a pretty expensive problem to deal with?

Yeah.

CNN: I was told you all have pledged something like $400 million to fight this.

The estimate is somewhere around $400 million, and the numbers change as you're out in the field and constructing these things. And it's essentially a three- to five-year program to install these pumps in these low-lying areas of the city. South Florida is coastal and low-lying. I kind of say we're flat and flatter. You look at the areas that are most vulnerable and start there.

It's nice that you say the Marshal Island won't flood but since it already is waiting for the coral to grow and rise with sea level is to little too late. About 15% of the country has moved to Arkansas already. The early emigrants were due to nuclear testing. The more recent due to flooding.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/


So while it's fine to hold your position for the officials in these areas that position is inherently irresponsible.

 

[Joepublic2]

Blah blah blah wake me up when I can sail to the north pole plz. It should be really safe, too, once all the polar bears drown.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I see a lot of declaritive statements there without any backing. My own education and career directly contradict your statements. It's obvious you don't know much about how the climate is modeled or you wouldn't be claiming there are gaping unknowns that we don't know about in our knowledge.

I suggest following the links here to learn about how climate works and how we know how it works. It's written at a roughly bachelors of science level.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

Take a look and the come back with your questions.

Your own education and career is in the field of thermodynamics, yes? While that has applications in climatology, it's only a piece of it. So please stop acting as if you hold all of the answers. Do you have any training or experience in climatology, or even meteorology?

The simple fact is that actual climatologists have not been able to develop a climate model that accurately reflects current reality and which provides accurate predictions. In fact, it's not even close. I'm sure you are well aware of this yet you counter with a link and an arrogant attitude?

If these awesome models exist feel free to provide a link. Until then, take your wool and pull it over someone else's eyes.

 

[DrPizza]

/wrong thread