No Warming Since 1995 - Jones?

[imokyrok]

NASA are incredibly sloppy these days. In the body of the article they claim a sea level increase of 3 mm per year and yet in the papers they list at the end to support their article they cite E. W. Leuliette & L. Miller, "Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE", Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608 (2009) whose findings were sea level rise of only 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/year which is the same rate as the previous 100 years Their findings are supported by Woppelmann et al. (2009) who recently obtained a result of 1.58 ± 0.03 mm/year.

They are quoting from the Willis paper which they also reference so no error.

It becomes very hard to take anything these people say seriously when one has to trawl through details to find their errors or omissions and it is impossible not to question their scientific dispassion when the errors are always in favour of exaggerating global warming.

I sure it must be terribly tedious for you trawling though all the scientific papers which support the the Theory of AGW trying to find some crumb of comfort to suit your cognitive dissonance. You have my sympathy. If you like I can put you in touch with a good psychotherapist.

[imokyrok]

Cato Unbound Blog Archive Goklany Okay with 250-Foot Sea-Level Rise

Thought I would post this response to the Goklany/ Cato article.

That's a pretty stark article.

This quote hits you right between the eyes.

The last time the earth was 4°C warmer, it was essentially ice-free. Being ice-free would have two rather “nonoptimal” outcomes for humans and the other surviving species. First, long before the two great ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, disappeared, we would lose all of the inland glaciers that currently provide most of the water for about a billion people. I’m guessing those folks would probably see that as nonoptimal.

[imokyrok]

Take anything you read from the Cato Institute with more than a grain of salt. They are another right-wing think-tank like the Heritage Institute, the Heartland Institute and the Marshall Institute, funded by wealthy Americans mostly so that teh Free Market (and their own wealth) is not undermined.

"Its not a problem" is one of the oldest denialist scams of them all. Read, enjoy, but watch out for cool-aid.

To be fair though at least they are recognizing the reality of climate change which is more than many right wing think tanks will do. That alone might help shift the opinions of some of the Sean Hannity followers out there.

[Akrasia]

I think it's hilarious that SAT and others put more trust in economic projections than climate projections (or at least the economic projections that say what he wants them to say)

Economic forecasts and projections are notoriously unreliable especially when we are talking about something new that has never happened before in the history of advanced human civilisation.

The consequences of a 4 degree rise in temperatures will be mass immigration/displacement as different regions become habitable/uninhabitable.

There is also like to be even faster species extinction than we are currently responsible for, fishocide as a huge amount of ocean life is wiped out. the unbelievable human tragedy associated with the instability and violence that always accompanies the end of an empire (the oil empire)

To disregard all of that, and much more, with the claim that it will only affect 5% of global gdp so everything'll be grand is utter bullcrap, that is the part of the science that we have the least well developed understanding.

One thing we know with a very high degree of certainty, is if we do end up reaching a 4 degree rise in global temperatures, the chances are we will be locked into an even larger rise due to the feedbacks we will unleash. It is so irresponsible to even contemplate taking that risk

[SAT]

They are quoting from the Willis paper which they also reference so no error.

I said errors and omissions. To not mention the results of later papers they themselves reference is rather a serious omission don't you think?

I sure it must be terribly tedious for you trawling though all the scientific papers which support the the Theory of AGW trying to find some crumb of comfort to suit your cognitive dissonance. You have my sympathy. If you like I can put you in touch with a good psychotherapist.

You find something wrong with me quoting from the papers NASA cited? Oh, and quit with the personal attacks.

[SAT]

I think it's hilarious that SAT and others put more trust in economic projections than climate projections (or at least the economic projections that say what he wants them to say)

As you know I have zero belief or confidence in the climate projections because observational evidence has shown them to be wrong time and again.

Economic forecasts and projections are notoriously unreliable especially when we are talking about something new that has never happened before in the history of advanced human civilisation.

As I have pointed out already a 4 degree rise is not unprecedented in the northern hemisphere and led to a time of great prosperity and food security.

The consequences of a 4 degree rise in temperatures will be mass immigration/displacement as different regions become habitable/uninhabitable.

Even if for the sake of argument we accept your worst case scenario (which btw I don't) do you not think there is already mass economic migration happening? So this would be nothing new.

There is also like to be even faster species extinction than we are currently responsible for, fishocide as a huge amount of ocean life is wiped out. the unbelievable human tragedy associated with the instability and violence that always accompanies the end of an empire (the oil empire)

Utter claptrap. Observational evidence and recent research papers say the opposite. Life thrives in warmer climates.

To disregard all of that, and much more, with the claim that it will only affect 5% of global gdp so everything'll be grand is utter bullcrap, that is the part of the science that we have the least well developed understanding.

But everything would be grand so no need to worry yourself.

One thing we know with a very high degree of certainty, is if we do end up reaching a 4 degree rise in global temperatures, the chances are we will be locked into an even larger rise due to the feedbacks we will unleash. It is so irresponsible to even contemplate taking that risk

Nonsense, that is simply blatant fear mongering. Not even the most dire predictions of climate modelling suggest this. The + 4 C rise is the new projected equilibrium point AFTER all positive feedbacks have exhausted themselves. Remember the science says the effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically as concentrations increase.

[feargach]

You are confusing cause and effect. The northern jet stream forms where cold air meets warm air. If the jet stream has moved south it is because cold air has moved south.

No, it's more complicated than that.

The reason the jet stream being south of Ireland causes cooler weather is indirect: it blocks warmer, higher-pressure zones (from the general area of the Azores) from moving up to warm us.

My understanding is (correct me if anyone has better info) that in the old days, when Ireland had balmier summers, those areas of high pressure were coming from further south. But the jet stream is now acting as a barrier, preventing those high pressure areas from moving far north enough for us to feel their effects.

I'm assuming that this is affecting sea temperatures too, to an extent.

[Akrasia]

As you know I have zero belief or confidence in the climate projections because observational evidence has shown them to be wrong time and again.

As I have pointed out already a 4 degree rise is not unprecedented in the northern hemisphere and led to a time of great prosperity and food security.

Sat, you really are Dangerously ignorant on this subject. Even if there were a precedent for +4 degree temperatures in this part of the northern hemisphere, a 4 degree rise in temps by the end of the 21st century would equate to a much higher rise in many parts of the world. it's an average temperature increase, not everywhere would increase by 4 degrees, places like the arctic could rise by significantly more (up to 15-16 degrees celcius according to the best projections) as that is where temperatures are increasing most rapidly. A 4 degree rise in global average temperatures is a very different thing to a 4 degree rise in regional temperatures.
But why believe me, here's a presentation from the hadley centre on this very topic.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-2betts.pdf

Even if for the sake of argument we accept your worst case scenario (which btw I don't) do you not think there is already mass economic migration happening? So this would be nothing new.

On a totally different scale SAT. We're talking about a wholescale change in land use and values. It would be a refugee crisis on a massive scale. The infrastructures that we have developed over thousands of years will be redundant, coastal cities would be flooded and may have to be abandoned, water and irrigation networks may be exhausted resulting in severe drought in many places with very high populations, if these places are forced to move in a short timeframe, there will be political conflict as well as an infrastructural deficit as the places that are benefiting from climate change won't have the necessary infrastructure to cope with a large influx of refugees.

Where water resources are shared between nations, there could be international conflict

Utter claptrap. Observational evidence and recent research papers say the opposite. Life thrives in warmer climates.

In that case Death valley ought to be the most abundant habitat on earth.

Nonsense, that is simply blatant fear mongering. Not even the most dire predictions of climate modelling suggest this. The + 4 C rise is the new projected equilibrium point AFTER all positive feedbacks have exhausted themselves. Remember the science says the effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically as concentrations increase.

wrong wrong wrong.
There is a very significant risk of runaway climate change as more feedbacks are activated the warmer the climate becomes. The 4 degree figure is a prediction for global warming by 2100 (and many models predict worst case scenarios of more than 4 degrees) But afterwards, your implication that the climate will stabalise at +4 degrees is dangerous ignorance, it will almost certainly get much worse beyond 2100

[SAT]

Sat, you really are Dangerously ignorant on this subject. Even if there were a precedent for +4 degree temperatures in this part of the northern hemisphere, a 4 degree rise in temps by the end of the 21st century would equate to a much higher rise in many parts of the world. it's an average temperature increase, not everywhere would increase by 4 degrees, places like the arctic could rise by significantly more (up to 15-16 degrees celcius according to the best projections) as that is where temperatures are increasing most rapidly. A 4 degree rise in global average temperatures is a very different thing to a 4 degree rise in regional temperatures.
But why believe me, here's a presentation from the hadley centre on this very topic.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-2betts.pdf

You are stating the obvious. During the Holocene Optimum ave temps in the northern hemisphere were 4 C higher.

BTW the arctic is currently 5 degrees cooler than it's 60 year average.

On a totally different scale SAT. We're talking about a wholescale change in land use and values. It would be a refugee crisis on a massive scale. The infrastructures that we have developed over thousands of years will be redundant, coastal cities would be flooded and may have to be abandoned, water and irrigation networks may be exhausted resulting in severe drought in many places with very high populations, if these places are forced to move in a short timeframe, there will be political conflict as well as an infrastructural deficit as the places that are benefiting from climate change won't have the necessary infrastructure to cope with a large influx of refugees.

You do know warmer air means more rainfall, right? I already linked to National Geographic which shows how this increased rainfall is greatly increasing the liveable space in parts of Africa.

Where water resources are shared between nations, there could be international conflict

Again a warmer world means more rainfall not less.

In that case Death valley ought to be the most abundant habitat on earth.

A puerile comment not worthy of a serious reply

wrong wrong wrong.
There is a very significant risk of runaway climate change as more feedbacks are activated the warmer the climate becomes. The 4 degree figure is a prediction for global warming by 2100 (and many models predict worst case scenarios of more than 4 degrees) But afterwards, your implication that the climate will stabalise at +4 degrees is dangerous ignorance, it will almost certainly get much worse beyond 2100

Only in Hollywood disaster movies and Al Gore documentaries.

In the real world all temperature projections are in fact forecasts of the new equilibrium points anticipated based on a specific set of conditions.

[Akrasia]

You are stating the obvious. During the Holocene Optimum ave temps in the northern hemisphere were 4 C higher.

Prove it. All the information I could find states that while temperatures during the mid holocene were 'generally warmer' it was only in the northern hemisphere, only during the summer, and nowhere near an average of 4 degrees (and nowhere anywhere in the northern hemisphere was 16 degrees warmer than today.) As you can see from the graph, the most warming occored lower down in the hemisphere closer to the tropics. In the polar region there was barely any warming. Our current situation is different, the poles are warming faster than anywhere else, and at +15 degrees, there will be no ice in the northern polar regions for the majority of the year (thus releasing billions of tonnes of methane from the permafrost and drastically accellerating global warming (something most of the models don't take into account or severely underestimate)

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
The +4 degrees scenario for climate change is very very different from your paradise version of the mid holocene. The conditions were totally different and the causes bear no relation to one another (the holocene warming was due to orbital factors, not greenhouse gasses)

BTW the arctic is currently 5 degrees cooler than it's 60 year average.

Source?

You do know warmer air means more rainfall, right? I already linked to National Geographic which shows how this increased rainfall is greatly increasing the liveable space in parts of Africa.

Warmer air can hold more water, it doesn't necessarily mean more rainfall (more infrequent but heavier downpours is the prevailing consensus) This kind of rainfall is the least useful for sustaining abundant life as it is less reliable and tends to lead to flooding and a lot of wasted water followed by periods of dought. Compare the savanahs of africa with the rainforests and you'll see the difference between frequent reliable rainfall, and seasonal rainy seasons and flash downpours)

National Geographic is an entertainment magazine, it is not a scientific journal, and the even if observations about improving conditions in one part of africa are correct, it doesn't mean that global warming will improve conditions on balance across the board. And it certainly doesn't say what the conditions will be like in 60 years if global temps are on average 2-4 degrees warmer than today.

A puerile comment not worthy of a serious reply

It was a reply to an equally ridiculous statement where you asserted that warmer weather is favoured by life, when that is patently untrue after a certain threshold, the warmer the weather, the worse the conditions for intelligent life, and you ignored the other factors that affect suitability to sustain life, specifically, access to water.

Only in Hollywood disaster movies and Al Gore documentaries.

Al Gore's speech (not going to call it a documentary, it was just a lecture, probably, ever even watched it myself) was based on the findings of the IPCC. If warming continues, there will be very serious consequences.

In the real world all temperature projections are in fact forecasts of the new equilibrium points anticipated based on a specific set of conditions.

yes, and the models predict catestrophic climate change if we continue to emitt greenhouse gasses at our current rate.