Its not warming: data vs. meme

Thank you!

Curiously, I noticed the Berkeley data suggests ~1970 was an inflection point year. Ah, so many curves and interesting data . . . from friends.

Bob Wilson

 

First let me note the 30 year moving average looked a little off, but correct in recent strong warming trend. That would be appropriate to graft onto the paleo data in a chart, and would lead to a more correct as noted in AR5 that the current 30 year period is likely the warmest in the last 1000 years. The statement in the TAR 1998 is likely the hottest year is not scientifically correct as proxies don't give us proper resolution, so there could have been hotter single anomalous years in the past.

I brought up the 2001 report and figure 2.20 from that report, not to drag us back to looking at that past mistake, but as the source of all this 1998 focus. Again as you seem to indicate a 11 year smoothing would get rid of all this pause non-sense.

No I did not get the idea from you but we have discussed it in the past and am glad for the company for the figure. 10 will get us close, 3 will distort the oscillations, and 11 being close to half a solar cycle is intuitively nice. Odd numbered smoothings also seem to be nice as they center on years with yearly data, so that we don't need to go back for monthly data to build a chart as an even number requires (2005-2015 centers nicely on 2010, while 2006-2015 is at 2010.5, but of course with fast computers and all the data it doesn't make much of a difference.

I don't know what the he is here? Are you anthropomorphic the sun, earth, climate?

Now that the paleo record seems better understood in 2016 than in 2001, we can look at the little ice age as a global but probably asynchronous phenomenon. I look forward to when we have a good idea how solar radiation and volcanic gases created thie global cooling. Lots of theories, but yes low sunspots and lots of volcanoes top the charts.

Oh don't chicken out on me now. The previous question was a scientific one. This question is a political one that doesn't depend much on climate science.

Low lying areas near oceans are at risk of flooding, same as it ever was. We have tamed rivers and have great irrigation systems, but some are using much more water than rain fall. It is idiotic to not have back up generation for hydro, and we have seen this created on purpose crisis (by utilities because regulation gave them more profit) in california in 2000. Lots of mitigation efforts that are not being done, because politically scare of climate change can be used to drive other agendas.

 

By anthropomorphism of physical objects we can possibly get a metaphysical or spiritual component, but it detracts from the science. If we are having a scientific discussion, then I would shy away from giving the sun any human characteristics.

Scientifically this is a quite different discussion then temperature. Many questions can be answered by sending up some more satelights and studying the effects of ocean oscillations and weather to varying radiation during different cycles and with different sun spot counts In a couple of decades (about 23 years, one more cycle) we should have much better understanding but this experiment is very slow. We must have patience if we are to be scientific, and wait for the data to be collected.. I am sure some very smart people are working on it.

Perhaps all the world is not just filled with nails, and there are better tools than a hammer. When you are using a machine gun to kill flies, you can not help but look foolish. I think we already know that the desired ends of lower world carbon output were not met by the means of this, so the ends could not justify the means. What is the purpose now on pretending it was a good idea to exagerate? I guess if we are in too armed camps you must choose sides, but I don't believe it is best to view the world this way.

The scientific question is not that. That is psychology.

The questions are as follows:
If the world continues to produce ghg at this rate what will the temperatures and sea levels be in the future, with uncertainty.
If the world reduced ghg production what would the sea levels and temperatures be?
Which scenario will each country be better off (there are winners and losers for both)

There is more food produced today with all the climate change industrialization has brought then any time in the past with colder temperatures and lower sea levels. People are hungry because of politics, not lack of food. Obesity as a health problem of plenty is the worst it has ever been, and starvation is at the lowest level as a percent of population. How can anyone but a fool claim that climate change not politics is responsable for starvation? In the US we throw away about 1/3 of the food we consume. How many people are hungry? How many have health problems from eating too much?

This is not to pretend hunger is not a problem. There are about 800 million people that are not getting enough to eat on this planet. The number is down from about 1 billion in 1990. It is a food distribution and politics problem, not a problem with growing enough food.