Slashdot Mirror

Sure, Schmidt includes the "adjusted" graph, moving the pea under the thimble as usual. Even worse is NOAA's shitty software, but that's another story you definitely won't be interested in reading about.

I propose that Wyoming add "cats" to it's list of energy fuels along with nuke, oil, coal, wood and them libral east-coast democrats and californicatin commie pinko faggots. yee-ha.

Too bad about wind. It definitely blows up there. Really really blows.

Your revised response makes more sense. I would avoid using the word subsidy in the context of this discussion. Maybe a better way to put what you are saying is that the natural gas industry has a competive advantage of being an established industry.

I like your statement "Once these factors dissipate, natural gas might be substantially more expensive and quite a bit more expensive than solar", because you used the word *might*, but I would challenge you to add some supporting evidence to this opinion.

One factor that contributes to the higher cost of solar is the initial cost of the investment.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

How long does it take an investment in a solar plant to catch up to an investment in a natural gas plant for a given region with current solar and natural gas costs? If you support the answer to that question, I will have more confidence in your opionion.

If you look honestly at the Minoan warm period (Minoan warm period approximately 3500 years ago was 4C warmer) , the Roman warm period and the Medieval Warm Period(The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) just 1000 years ago was 2C warmer than today), you'll see humans and human civilization did pretty good during the warm periods.

What exactly do you believe we are not doing and what effect do you believe will be achieved if we start doing what you believe we should be doing?
Oh I know, I bet you believe we should cut emissions, Right? well the

• US has cut emissions,
• EU has cut emissions,
• Russia has cut emissions,
• Japan has cut emissions,
• Indonesia has cut emissions,

Global Carbon Budget 2016.
What would happen if we cut emissions to zero in the US? well by the models used by climatologiists, it would decrese the warming of the planet from a projected 4-6C to a much cooler 3.5-5.5C!
How could we make a real difference? well China and India is putting out almost as much CO2 as The US and India combined, and both are increasing their emissions as well, so obviously the real answer would be to either have India and China fall on their swords or start massive ocean fertilization.

Wow. Just wow. Where do I start? How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them. Never the less, we have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and we have fewer. You like NOAA's stuff - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ . Look towards the bottom for a bar graph. If I were to take 2000-today by year and mix it up the years by that decade with say the 1950s randomized in the 1950s (so it's not obvious which one is which, however with correct data for that decade) and see if you can tell which one is which, I bet you'd lose that one. Unless you really studied the data carefully. I honestly don't understand how you can say there are more and they are worse. The NOAA graph just doesn't show that, at least not yet. Maybe next month it will after they "adjust" it so it's not a problem anymore like they're doing with the other stuff.

(previous stuff I showed you) You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you? The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW. If you're a TA or a Professor going over someone's scientific work, that is one of the things you look out for. Faked or wrong data. The fact NASA has been caught red handed changing this stuff REALLY should bother you.

Here are some references, but look below
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
You like the telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Here's one for you and you can see it with your own (as the Eagles would say - lying) eyes - Hansen's page (He no longer works for nasa BTW)- http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... . Not as I remembered it. That's because they keep changing it - http://web.archive.org/web/*/h... Check out the 2007/2/24 version to today. Wow, same page where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record. Now 1930s looks a lot colder. I don't think anyone would say the 1930s was the hottest on record as Hansen had to admit to in the early 2000s looking at the new graph. He claimed 1990s were until he was shown to be wrong. He claimed it was a Y2K bug. I don't think anyone believed that one.

Greenland - what about Venice Italy? It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.

To me this captain obvious moment (shown by the documented change in web page above) really should concern you, and make you mad that you've been lied to all of this time. Could go on and show you page after page or as that other site did, he overlaid them for you. Not that you seem to care, or perhaps you don't understand the material. I'm reminded a lot that other people aren't like me. Things that are painfully obvious to me aren't obvious to others.

Now, about concensus? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... Yea, not so much.

Well I've enjoyed going down memory lane a bit here if you're not persuaded by the very definitive evidence I've shown you, you probably never will be. I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.

The comparison to tobacco is disingenuous BTW. I was a scientist back in those days, in the 1970s. I felt it was clear. Again, I could find where the tobacco industry had faked data and weren't being honest. It wasn't hard even without something like the Internet. This in a time when science wasn't so good, calling a lot of things cancer causing that weren't. Showing other people without something like the Internet was just about impossib

Turns out that Arctic sea ice extent varies on a 60-80 year cycle, at least since the early 1700s. Perhaps what we're seeing is part of that trend, given it's on schedule and on scale?

Turns out that Arctic sea ice extent varies on a 60-80 year cycle, at least since the early 1700s. Perhaps what we're seeing is part of that trend, given it's on schedule and on scale?

Linking to Wikipedia articles about two particular hurricanes says nothing about the relationship between CO2 levels and hurricanes.

Al Gore (with no background in science) made alarmist assertions that the frequency and intensity of cyclones was in the process of skyrocketing. Dr. R.N. Maue analyzed actual data and found just the opposite:

Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity
Abstract
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
- R.N. Maue, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University

And there are plenty of studies that show increasing global temperature causes reduced storm activity. One such study published in Quaternary Science Reviews is summarized here.

Here is a list of 107 failed predictions made by alarmists:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

But for some people, 107 failed predictions isn't enough to destroy the credibility of the alarmists. One wonders how many failed predictions it will take until the holdouts think "hmm, perhaps the whole thing is not credible."

IPCC in their last report showed actual temperature increases were well below the bottom limit of where their models showed they could possibly be.

Yep, the IPCC showed their own models invalid. So if you don't believe the IPCC not sure what else to point you to.

link of someone comparing IPCC's 102 models vs observed temperatures. You will notice the only thing the models tell the IPCC is that the actual observations must be wrong. lol

Here are the 74 questions with comments on each one of them. Whatever your feelings on this particular one, there are a lot of very good questions in there that the people deserve answers to. It is about time that someone started asking them.

Under Rick Perry as Energy Secretary, perhaps we will also see some meaningful reform of the DOE. There is barely anything energy related about the agency, and most of the useful pieces would fit well elsewhere.

I don't know how real this is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Richard Lindzen made six figures as a professor salary at MIT.

In 2005, there was a prediction that 50 million people would be displaced by global warming by 2010. Didn't even come close to coming true.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html

This article has a rather strident tone but has solid links to document the above story.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/

These claims were put forward by Norman Myers. After the prediction didn't pan out for 2010, he made updated claims: now it will be 200 million displaced, by 2050.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23899195

I'm not a climate scientist, but as far as I can tell, the worries about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming have led to very few testable predictions, and the few that have been tested have not proven out. The predicted sea level rise and flooding by 2010 didn't happen, and the computer models that try to predict warming due to carbon dioxide are very far off their predictions.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/13/the-abject-failure-of-official-global-warming-predictions/

People argue over whether there was a "global warming pause" or not, but I think it's pretty clear that even if global warming didn't pause, the total carbon dioxide concentration went up a lot during that time yet the predicted temperature rises didn't occur.

There is a saying: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not convinced that the claims of global warming problems even rise to the level of ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary.

So if someone could please post links to the most persuasive proof that we should all be worried about carbon dioxide levels, I'll take a look. But at the moment, I think we have plenty of other worries that are higher priority.

P.S. The article suggests that Boko Haram is being driven by climate change. Boko Haram itself says that it is driven by a desire to create an Islamic state and to impose Sharia law. I view this attempt to form a linkage between climate change and Boko Haram as unsubstantiated hand-waving. As I understand it, the claimed link is that global warming leads to displaced and impoverished people who are more likely to join Boko Haram, but I'd like to see some evidence. Are there any factors other than climate change that might lead to people being displaced and impoverished? How do you control for such factors in any predictions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram#Ideology

In 2005, there was a prediction that 50 million people would be displaced by global warming by 2010. Didn't even come close to coming true.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html

This article has a rather strident tone but has solid links to document the above story.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/

These claims were put forward by Norman Myers. After the prediction didn't pan out for 2010, he made updated claims: now it will be 200 million displaced, by 2050.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23899195

I'm not a climate scientist, but as far as I can tell, the worries about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming have led to very few testable predictions, and the few that have been tested have not proven out. The predicted sea level rise and flooding by 2010 didn't happen, and the computer models that try to predict warming due to carbon dioxide are very far off their predictions.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/13/the-abject-failure-of-official-global-warming-predictions/

People argue over whether there was a "global warming pause" or not, but I think it's pretty clear that even if global warming didn't pause, the total carbon dioxide concentration went up a lot during that time yet the predicted temperature rises didn't occur.

There is a saying: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not convinced that the claims of global warming problems even rise to the level of ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary.

So if someone could please post links to the most persuasive proof that we should all be worried about carbon dioxide levels, I'll take a look. But at the moment, I think we have plenty of other worries that are higher priority.

P.S. The article suggests that Boko Haram is being driven by climate change. Boko Haram itself says that it is driven by a desire to create an Islamic state and to impose Sharia law. I view this attempt to form a linkage between climate change and Boko Haram as unsubstantiated hand-waving. As I understand it, the claimed link is that global warming leads to displaced and impoverished people who are more likely to join Boko Haram, but I'd like to see some evidence. Are there any factors other than climate change that might lead to people being displaced and impoverished? How do you control for such factors in any predictions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram#Ideology

If the uncertainty bars are greater than 1/4 of a degree, would you agree that you're spouting fake news? :)

Let's check for ourselves:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

"Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable."

Call me when you get above .46 of a degree :)

Yes, because those who question the "science" behind CAGW hysteria are obviously Moon landing "deniers" also. Obviously. Hey, come to think of it, isn't there a discredited, nonsense paper about just that?

I now await your thoughtful flinging of insults and attempts to take a big shitty dump on the website I just linked to because it's "funded by big oil and stupid science denier people who want to destroy the planet". Please don't disappoint me.

Yeah....no, you're just wrong:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Ferret

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Andy May (at Watt's Up with That)

Andy May

first, this

I love XKCD, but surprisingly Randal got it rather wrong when he did the comic - in the sense that the XKCD graph is based on old and debunked views that have been replaced by better data. For the actual data in a format similar to XKCD please see:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

For those that want to 'shoot the messenger', why don't you like the modern observational data that replaces the old and incorrect meme ? some folks are just so conservative they love eco 'doom n gloom' and don't want to accept better research that shows today's conditions are not exceptional compared to even the geologically recent past. We are still unable to farm in Greenland as the Vikings did (it is so much colder today than then that the graves of the Viking farmers there are now under 'permafrost' - because it was warm enough 1000 years ago that Greenland was green and fertile and not white like today).

The idea that there's more money to be made shilling against burning petroleum than there is shilling for it is simply farfetched.

Oh, really?

Suppose a climate researcher, let's say Dr. Smith-Jones, is a professor at a university, and he likes his job and he likes his university. Suppose he wants grant money to cover his studies. Do you really think that he will get more money for a study based on the idea that catastrophic climate change isn't real, or more money for a study that will bolster the climate change idea? Keep in mind it is the Obama administration right now.

Now maybe, just maybe, he could make more money by jumping ship and shilling for Evil Big Petroleum company. (a) He doesn't want to; his friends would cut him off cold, he doesn't want to move, etc. (b) He likely doesn't have any idea how to do that. How do you reach out to Evil Big Petroleum company and say "I am willing to shill for you, give me money"?

Any scientist who can conclusively disprove AGW would be able to dine out on that for the rest of his life.

Maybe. Yet here's the thing. I don't understand why we are even talking about this. We believe that human-caused climate change is going to be catastrophic because of some computer models from two decades ago. Those models are outside their 95% confidence interval now. The temperature is nearly flat since two decades yet Carbon Dioxide levels have gone up significantly. We have no reason to think that warming will be catastrophic aside from these models, and these models have been shown to be completely inaccurate at predicting the future.

Yet the climate change believers are not phased in the slightest. I have seen a prediction that 50 millions people would be displaced by 2010 due to climate change. It didn't happen, now the prediction is 200 millions people displaced by 2050.

One might think that the person who proved that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria would "dine out for life" on that. First he had to convince a sceptical world by giving himself ulcers. This radical step proved his thesis but how can one do the same for climate change? When the dogma is so entrenched how can one fight it?

Need mind the fact that the warming we'll see before the next icing period will make for a wider abundance of plant and animal life.

No, forget they got THAT completely backwards. Instead turn your attention to the even more ethically questionable fear mongering of "ocean acidification", which in fact is really AT WORST the Oceon moving to a slightly more neutral PH from the base it's at now (really a calcification problem but then that would invoke TEH FEAR now would it?) .

The ocean is not in fact acidifying one bit, any more than my jumping up in the air means I am in danger of falling into the sun.

If you want real details on what is up with open "acidification" from actual scientists as opposed to people paid to scare you, read this which covers many papers on the topic...

There is the fact that the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century

Not even close.

That's what a little knowledge will do to you. You're way in over your head and you don't even know it. Looks like they're removing stuff now. I used to be able to find the paper that Hansen had to admit the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century. He lied about it and got caught, though he claimed it was a Y2K error and not a lie. In my humble opinion, his successor is lying a lot more. That's why every month this year has been a "record." Even featured here on slashdot it's so suspicious, so it's a captain obvious moment. I know true blue cool aid drinking believers believe it.

This site has actual photos of newspaper articles. Those stubborn facts again-
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...

Yet another analysis:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Did you look at their last graph from 1880 on? That doesn't line up with the CO2 levels worth a damn.

The cyclical variations from PDO/ENSO/etc on top of the secular warming from CO2 explain each peak and valley in the temperature record quite well. It is naive to think that you would have a monotonic rise in temperatures that matched the monotonic rise in CO2. This is certainly not what the models show.

Here's a neat tool you can use to explore this. Set CO2 to 2.4 and PDO to 0.13 and you already have a pretty good match to the temperature record.

I understand you're not a scientist. However for God sakes, look at the data! Go into the distant past to present! Analyze it! Come up with a theory! You'll see in short order CO2 falls apart as a cause, clearly. Another clue is they want to put people in jail that disagree with man made GW. Classic sign they're wrong and they know it. Otherwise, they'd present real science. You know, using the scientific method. Data, results, you can do it too and come up with the same results.

What's very frustrating to me is I've predicted this for 20 years that their models wouldn't hold up and I've been right. They continue to fail as long as they're based on CO2.

Wonder why I haven't been responding? I have a recipe to save anything from you off to the side. I don't even see it. I came across this one by chance. So I figured I'd try to enlighten you again even though I'm sure I failed. You have a really big problem. You have to overcome those stubborn articles from the past that show MMGW is bullshit. Good luck with that.

There will be no prolonged cooling period in your lifetime.

Someone already disagrees with you back on July 9th. Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead [from 2020 to 2053,]

Maybe yes. Maybe no. Maybe we just don't know because we don't have enough information. Or maybe we DO have but "teh Evil {Organization-Name-Goes-Here}" is out to get us.

Or maybe humans don't like change. Another way: "First you tell me to push, and we've build all of these emotions and businesses and structures to push, and now you're telling me to pull? How about I push you off a cliff instead and we'll call it even."

It's all in DEGREE of implementation. "If we don't stop global warming now, it'll be too late" is what I usually hear. But how much is enough?

Mostly on topic: Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?

MY answer. NO. No you shouldn't -- if you care enough about this glorious, wonderful planet and the damage we are all causing to it every day then you shouldn't have kids. And you should kill any current kids you have. Neighbors kids, too. Oh, and go ahead and kill yourself as well. Hmmm? What about me? I'll let you go first, thank you.

Our kids will survive in their environment they inherited. Or they won't. or they'll die of peanut allergies, or the snowflakes will have nervous breakdowns once they get into the real world that doesn't care about them or what they think. It behooves us to leave them the best environment we can but who's to define "best"?

I don't know how to solve this. No one does. We don't even agree on the terms, and can't agree to disagree. So we all do what we think best and hope for the best. Until someone actually decides that violence, money, and power is the solution and then things'll get even worse instead of better.

Hell, I'm an atheist but maybe prayer IS the answer. Or at least actual careful thought and then you ostracize those without any power. Gee, sounds like The Lives of the Rich and Famous and SJWs, doesn't it?

Nye hasn't published any papers on this topic. Let's look at what real scientists have found.

Even as Al Gore was trying to scare everyone into believing that the frequency and intensity of cyclones was in the process of skyrocketing, Dr. R.N. Maue analyzed actual data and found just the opposite:

Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity
Abstract
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
- R.N. Maue, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University

And there are plenty of studies that show increasing global temperature causes reduced storm activity. One such study published in Quaternary Science Reviews is summarized here.

You have a very simplistic view of anyone critical of mainstream climate change attitudes. If there's a common attribute to the critics I think it would be anti-alarmism. For the rest I see all kinds of opinions, and indeed a lot of kneejerk skepticism of people who lose sight of the core issues and feel vindicated by every small error in the mainstream research. Still, critics who believe that the climate isn't warming up at all are probably a minority if you visit sites like http://wattsupwiththat.com/ .
I read the blog of Judith Curry now and then and she is one of those who think the recent warming just is not as big as predicted. That means the models are not good enough at predicting what happens. It doesn't mean there's no human made warming or even that it's not the main component.
And I've just read a book by Bjorn Lomborg. I thought it was sensible, it's also anti-alarmist but it doesn't deny manmade warming. It just disagrees about what should be done about it. So he agrees with what the research workgroups of the IPCC come up with but not with what the leading workgroup says who draw the conclusions. Or should I say disagreed because it's almost 10 years old and the IPCC has evolved as well and they put a lot more emphasis now on mitigation and adaptation.

I think this is what the AC is talking about.

AFAICT it wouldn't have mattered, by multiple measurements 2015 was warmer than 2008.

“Credibility may require climate researchers to decrease their carbon footprint,” Attari said. “Effective communicators about climate change do sometimes discuss their own behavior and our research indicates that this can be a good way to enhance their credibility,” Attari added. “Whether the climate scientists are male or female, what they do in private can have a pronounced effect on how their message is perceived by the public.” Climate scientists are more credible when they practice what they preach Attari, S. Z. et al. (2016). Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice, Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-016-1713-2

Watts has an interesting post on who in the Climate Debate has and hasn't Renewable Solar on their personal residences, Study: ‘Climate scientists are more credible when they practice what they preach’ – but my aerial surveys show many don’t.

If most of the true believers can't make the effort then why should the average 6-pack Joe? Additionally why should Americans "Set the Example" for the World to follow when the People calling for the Americans to set the example, can't set the example?

Watts' headline is based on comparing Scenario A to observations but in reality Scenario B is closest to reality but slightly higher than observations.

Hansen's scenario A has mankind's CO2 output rising exponentially at 1.5% per year (see the second paragraph on page 5 of the original paper) since 1988, but the actual rate of increase has been substantially higher - about 2% per year based on this graph from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Hansen's scenario A has the average global surface temperature rising over 1 C between 1988 and 2014 (see figure 3 on page 7 of Hansen's paper). The actual temperature rise during that period was somewhere between 0.2 C and 0.4 C depending on which of the many data sets you believe.

Since Hansen's basic hypothesis was "more CO2 emissions = faster warming", scenario B certainly was not "closest to reality"; in fact none of his scenarios is at all realistic, since (empirically) he completely failed to accurately predict the relationship between CO2 and temperature - which was the entire point of his paper.

Hansen's model also had too high a value for climate sensitivity (around 4.2 IIRC) while subsequent research came up with a value around 3.2.

[1 C] * [3.2/4.2] = [0.76 C], which is still about double the observed temperature rise.

There is a reason that so much effort has been invested by alarmists into trying to make excuses for the lower-than-predicted temperatures - it's because temperatures have been lower than they predicted! That's still true, even if you use more recent models with less dramatic sensitivity to CO2.

There are already cities like Miami and Norfolk, VA that are flooding in areas when the king tides occur.

Don't be ridiculous - Miami (1.8 m) and Miami Beach (1.2 m) were both built practically at sea level to begin with; they have always been highly vulnerable to flooding since their founding. The sea level has only risen perhaps 0.25 m since that time, whereas the natural range of tides + waves + storm surges is 5+ m (especially in hurricane country!).

Norfolk, Virginia is likewise built at such a low elevation (2.1 m) that flooding problems are inevitable, although in their case the founding was long enough ago (1682) that the danger may be due to subsidence and pre-AGW sea level rise, rather than it originally being an obviously bad location.

If you look closely that EPA graph does show some acceleration.

Hardly, unless you want to count the little bump at the end which is too short to be statistically significant given how chaotic the climate system is.

In the Guardian article I think you misread "several meters" as "7 meters".

No, the original paper contains numerous statements along these lines: "Sea level reached 6–9 m in the Eemian, a time that we have concluded was probably no more than a few tenths of a degree warmer than today."

The introduction also makes reference to an earlier paper: "This uncertainty is illustrated by Pollard et al. (2015), who found that addition of hydro-fracturing and cliff failure into their ice sheet model increased simulated sea level rise from 2 to 17 m, in response to only 2 C ocean warming and accelerated the time for substantial change from several centuries to several decades."

Several meters of sea level rise this century is impossible to rule out. We don't know much about the dynamics of ice

Watts' headline is based on comparing Scenario A to observations but in reality Scenario B is closest to reality but slightly higher than observations.

Hansen's scenario A has mankind's CO2 output rising exponentially at 1.5% per year (see the second paragraph on page 5 of the original paper) since 1988, but the actual rate of increase has been substantially higher - about 2% per year based on this graph from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Hansen's scenario A has the average global surface temperature rising over 1 C between 1988 and 2014 (see figure 3 on page 7 of Hansen's paper). The actual temperature rise during that period was somewhere between 0.2 C and 0.4 C depending on which of the many data sets you believe.

Since Hansen's basic hypothesis was "more CO2 emissions = faster warming", scenario B certainly was not "closest to reality"; in fact none of his scenarios is at all realistic, since (empirically) he completely failed to accurately predict the relationship between CO2 and temperature - which was the entire point of his paper.

Hansen's model also had too high a value for climate sensitivity (around 4.2 IIRC) while subsequent research came up with a value around 3.2.

[1 C] * [3.2/4.2] = [0.76 C], which is still about double the observed temperature rise.

There is a reason that so much effort has been invested by alarmists into trying to make excuses for the lower-than-predicted temperatures - it's because temperatures have been lower than they predicted! That's still true, even if you use more recent models with less dramatic sensitivity to CO2.

There are already cities like Miami and Norfolk, VA that are flooding in areas when the king tides occur.

Don't be ridiculous - Miami (1.8 m) and Miami Beach (1.2 m) were both built practically at sea level to begin with; they have always been highly vulnerable to flooding since their founding. The sea level has only risen perhaps 0.25 m since that time, whereas the natural range of tides + waves + storm surges is 5+ m (especially in hurricane country!).

Norfolk, Virginia is likewise built at such a low elevation (2.1 m) that flooding problems are inevitable, although in their case the founding was long enough ago (1682) that the danger may be due to subsidence and pre-AGW sea level rise, rather than it originally being an obviously bad location.

If you look closely that EPA graph does show some acceleration.

Hardly, unless you want to count the little bump at the end which is too short to be statistically significant given how chaotic the climate system is.

In the Guardian article I think you misread "several meters" as "7 meters".

No, the original paper contains numerous statements along these lines: "Sea level reached 6–9 m in the Eemian, a time that we have concluded was probably no more than a few tenths of a degree warmer than today."

The introduction also makes reference to an earlier paper: "This uncertainty is illustrated by Pollard et al. (2015), who found that addition of hydro-fracturing and cliff failure into their ice sheet model increased simulated sea level rise from 2 to 17 m, in response to only 2 C ocean warming and accelerated the time for substantial change from several centuries to several decades."

Several meters of sea level rise this century is impossible to rule out. We don't know much about the dynamics of ice

If you paid attention to actual time scales in actual published scientific papers instead of sexed up headlines you wouldn't be saying that.

The predicted high rate of warming from the early work of NASA and the IPCC has already been falsified. This is why more recent IPCC reports forecast much lower rates of warming (while still predicting catastrophe).

For instance observed sea level rise has always been faster than predicted in any of the IPCC reports.

The sea level is hardly rising at all right now; it is plain to see from the actual data that a massive acceleration in the rise would be required to fulfil the predictions of flooded cities and so forth. Moreover, those dramatic predictions come from sensational numbers like 7 meters, but these days the IPCC is predicting a rise of less than 1 meter over the next century, which would be more than usual, but still not terribly exciting in the grand scheme of things.

If you paid attention to actual time scales in actual published scientific papers instead of sexed up headlines you wouldn't be saying that.

The predicted high rate of warming from the early work of NASA and the IPCC has already been falsified. This is why more recent IPCC reports forecast much lower rates of warming (while still predicting catastrophe).

For instance observed sea level rise has always been faster than predicted in any of the IPCC reports.

The sea level is hardly rising at all right now; it is plain to see from the actual data that a massive acceleration in the rise would be required to fulfil the predictions of flooded cities and so forth. Moreover, those dramatic predictions come from sensational numbers like 7 meters, but these days the IPCC is predicting a rise of less than 1 meter over the next century, which would be more than usual, but still not terribly exciting in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not going to make an exhaustive list, but I will offer a few sources.

1) The predictive record:

a) Temperature and CO2: James Hansen - one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world, and former head of the NASA Goddard Institue for Space Studies - gave highly influential testimony to the United States Congress in 1988 based on his efforts at numerical modeling of future AGW. The actual increase in temperature is approximately that of his best-case scenario, in which he assumed far lower CO2 emissions than have actually occured; the actual increase in CO2 since that time has exceeded his worst-case scenario.

(Despite this unambiguous falsification of his models, Hansen continues to prophesy CO2-induced doom real soon now to this day - and the media still takes him seriously.)

The temperature predictions of the early IPCC reports have also been falsified; over time the group has gradually lowered their estimation of the climate's sensitivity to CO2, while maintaining that doom is as imminent as ever (or more so).

b) Sea level rise: "A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program." - San Jose Mercury News (June 30, 1989)

2) Vague, mutually contradictory models: Amusingly, this very thread contains a fine example about sea level rise - phantomfive's "real, peer reviewed scientific paper" predicts seven meters of sea level rise in the near future (and I have seen other papers predicting even larger rises), but both the Guardian article he linked, and the Solomon Islands paper in the OP have other climate scientists are predicting a rise of less than one meter.

Another good example of the self-contradictory nature of the "settled science", is the myriad efforts to explain away the unpredicted 15+ year long "pause" in statistically significant global warming that has occured since about 2000 (although the strong El Nino this year may finally end it, at least temporarily): there are now 50+ official excuses, ranging from "the missing heat is hidden in the oceans" and "excess volcanic dust is dimming the sun", to "the pause isn't real; it's just an error in the measurements". Many of these excuses are mutually contradictory - the pause cannot be just a measurement error and also have a real physical cause.

(Suspiciously missing from the above, is any serious consideration of the possibility that the models were just wrong about the magnitude of the climate's sensitivity to CO2.)

3) Low quality data: There are two main problems with the data sets upon which modern climate science is based. The first is that claims about the long-t

I'm not going to make an exhaustive list, but I will offer a few sources.

1) The predictive record:

a) Temperature and CO2: James Hansen - one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world, and former head of the NASA Goddard Institue for Space Studies - gave highly influential testimony to the United States Congress in 1988 based on his efforts at numerical modeling of future AGW. The actual increase in temperature is approximately that of his best-case scenario, in which he assumed far lower CO2 emissions than have actually occured; the actual increase in CO2 since that time has exceeded his worst-case scenario.

(Despite this unambiguous falsification of his models, Hansen continues to prophesy CO2-induced doom real soon now to this day - and the media still takes him seriously.)

The temperature predictions of the early IPCC reports have also been falsified; over time the group has gradually lowered their estimation of the climate's sensitivity to CO2, while maintaining that doom is as imminent as ever (or more so).

b) Sea level rise: "A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program." - San Jose Mercury News (June 30, 1989)

2) Vague, mutually contradictory models: Amusingly, this very thread contains a fine example about sea level rise - phantomfive's "real, peer reviewed scientific paper" predicts seven meters of sea level rise in the near future (and I have seen other papers predicting even larger rises), but both the Guardian article he linked, and the Solomon Islands paper in the OP have other climate scientists are predicting a rise of less than one meter.

Another good example of the self-contradictory nature of the "settled science", is the myriad efforts to explain away the unpredicted 15+ year long "pause" in statistically significant global warming that has occured since about 2000 (although the strong El Nino this year may finally end it, at least temporarily): there are now 50+ official excuses, ranging from "the missing heat is hidden in the oceans" and "excess volcanic dust is dimming the sun", to "the pause isn't real; it's just an error in the measurements". Many of these excuses are mutually contradictory - the pause cannot be just a measurement error and also have a real physical cause.

(Suspiciously missing from the above, is any serious consideration of the possibility that the models were just wrong about the magnitude of the climate's sensitivity to CO2.)

3) Low quality data: There are two main problems with the data sets upon which modern climate science is based. The first is that claims about the long-t

I'm not going to make an exhaustive list, but I will offer a few sources.

1) The predictive record:

a) Temperature and CO2: James Hansen - one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world, and former head of the NASA Goddard Institue for Space Studies - gave highly influential testimony to the United States Congress in 1988 based on his efforts at numerical modeling of future AGW. The actual increase in temperature is approximately that of his best-case scenario, in which he assumed far lower CO2 emissions than have actually occured; the actual increase in CO2 since that time has exceeded his worst-case scenario.

(Despite this unambiguous falsification of his models, Hansen continues to prophesy CO2-induced doom real soon now to this day - and the media still takes him seriously.)

The temperature predictions of the early IPCC reports have also been falsified; over time the group has gradually lowered their estimation of the climate's sensitivity to CO2, while maintaining that doom is as imminent as ever (or more so).

b) Sea level rise: "A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program." - San Jose Mercury News (June 30, 1989)

2) Vague, mutually contradictory models: Amusingly, this very thread contains a fine example about sea level rise - phantomfive's "real, peer reviewed scientific paper" predicts seven meters of sea level rise in the near future (and I have seen other papers predicting even larger rises), but both the Guardian article he linked, and the Solomon Islands paper in the OP have other climate scientists are predicting a rise of less than one meter.

Another good example of the self-contradictory nature of the "settled science", is the myriad efforts to explain away the unpredicted 15+ year long "pause" in statistically significant global warming that has occured since about 2000 (although the strong El Nino this year may finally end it, at least temporarily): there are now 50+ official excuses, ranging from "the missing heat is hidden in the oceans" and "excess volcanic dust is dimming the sun", to "the pause isn't real; it's just an error in the measurements". Many of these excuses are mutually contradictory - the pause cannot be just a measurement error and also have a real physical cause.

(Suspiciously missing from the above, is any serious consideration of the possibility that the models were just wrong about the magnitude of the climate's sensitivity to CO2.)

3) Low quality data: There are two main problems with the data sets upon which modern climate science is based. The first is that claims about the long-t

The post you replied to is addressing claims that AGW-induced sea level rise is already causing significant damage, which is clearly bogus. One of the reasons I am sceptical of the claims of sea level doom, is the fact that its prophets seem incapable of distinguishing clearly between predictions about the future, and present reality.

That is not a joke: it's a real, peer reviewed scientific paper.

And there are other "real, peer reviewed scientific paper"s that say the number will be more like 2 meters. Almost as if the science is not settled...

Moreover, all of the catastrophic sea level prophecies depend upon the larger anthropogenic global warming theory, which has several problems:

1) It's predictive record is very poor; numerous specific claims from prominent individuals and organizations have already been falsified by the passage of time. We have already overshot some of the worst-case CO2 emission predictions from early in the movement, and yet we have also undershot some of the best-case temperature predictions, suggesting that the climate's sensitivity to additional CO2 is far lower than claimed. The AGW movement has quietly adjusted their predicted temperature rise downward quite substantially, while still maintaining that the situation is as dangerous as ever.

2) The models are extremely vague, imprecise, and mutually contradictory. The only specific thing they seem to agree on, is that we're doomed. :eyeroll:

3) The data with which the models are calibrated is of very low quality; the error bars are huge on almost everything, especially prior to about 1990 (or 2000?) when modern sensor networks started coming online. Definitive claims are frequently made about time periods for which we have no solid data at all, and the past data that we do have is constantly being "adjusted" and "corrected" - conveniently, usually in a direction that magnifies any upward temperature trends.

4) We've already passed several of the drop-dead dates set by the AGW prophets - the "If you don't act by XXXX, it will be too late!" dates. But of course they just set new ones and pretend like the last round never happened...

(Yes, there are sources for all of the above. But it's exhausting to compile all the links to the standards required by internet critics, so I'm not going to do it right now. Maybe later if someone asks, but really - it's not that hard to Google it if you really care - you just have to be willing to read the heretical websites of the dreaded "climate deniers" like WattsUpWithThat.com, who will in turn link you back to the relevant government, peer-reviewed, and mainstream media sources if you look hard enough.)

Finally, even if it really happens, a seven meter sea level rise over the course of a century or so obviously will not "doom" us. The vast majority of land on Earth is at a much higher elevation than that. Some specific areas (like Florida) would be hit pretty hard, but the predicted rise is still slow enough to give people plenty of time to relocate further inland/uphill if required. It would be expensive - but so would giving up all fossil fuels.

The assertion: these regions will be less habitable than in pre-industrial times, when air conditioning hadn't been invented.

Assuming this climate prediction comes true (very dubious, as no previous prediction has come true); sorry, but I'll take 46 degrees Celsius and an air-conditioned residence over 44 degrees Celsius and no air conditioning, any day.

Now, if you want to talk about people in that region not being able to afford air conditioning, that is a different problem, caused by insufficient economic growth.

Your analogy would be valid if somebody was reacting to street racing deaths (human behavior) by shouting for speed governors that prevented speeds above the speed limit, tiny gas tank sizes (to require more frequent fuel stops), and convoluted electronic interlocks that had to be painstakingly disabled every time you wanted to use the full performance of a "unregulated racing car"

Actually, The EPA is attempting to do that, or at least, the first stages.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

I like to cite actual climate scientists that predicted things, it makes for entertaining responses.

Dr. Peter Wadhams had famously claimed that Arctic Sea Ice would be completely gone this year [2015], even Gavin said it was ridiculous:

So, when will climate scientists actually submit to peer review instead of hiding the data? If we can't rerun their models, there is no science being done. Science is about repeatability, and as long as the data is being hidden behind NDAs, there is no science being done.

Questioning the evidence with other equally credible evidence isn't lying.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Questioning the evidence with other equally credible evidence isn't lying.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Questioning the evidence with other equally credible evidence isn't lying.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Questioning the evidence with other equally credible evidence isn't lying.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Questioning the evidence with other equally credible evidence isn't lying.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

"...billed as a "science educator,"" Lets correct that - a science entertainer.

Nye's politics trump his science:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl... ... For the record - I don't know how much of the warming trend is due to CO2 vs natural variation - don't think it is knowable at this time. Most people can't stand not knowing and have taken one side or the other...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/22/seven-earth-day-predictions-that-failed-spectacularly/

So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.

Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying. From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven green predictions that were just flat out wrong.

how did they get past review in the first place?

You do realize that Tol's paper passed peer review also? You must therefore believe that there's 'a big conspiracy among the authors, the reviewers, the publishers, and more'. ?

I note that you dodged the question about breaking anonymity.

I would happy to pass along peer reviewed scientific studies studying peer review.

As to your other comments, since when are social scientists (who are included in Cook's 97% figure) climatologists? Since when are public surveys considered climate science literature? AMS members are a lot closer to 'climatologists' than many of the scientists he includes in Cook's 'consensus' paper.

---

On another note, you got me thinking about the integrity of the people on the review board who approved Cook's paper.

"Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP), Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which published the now discredited Cook et al. 97% consensus paper." - https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Maybe they believe climate change is SO important that they're willing to be dishonest? Gleick was willing to be dishonest. At least we can agree on that, right?

Apparently it's statistically unknowable whether it's warmer now than in 1880, based on systematic errors in the equipment we've used.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

This is Science 101. We learnt in high school not to make such errors.