Stand Down the Panic

Along with the tiny problems of no warming in 16 years and no acceleration of sea level rise and no increase in the number of hurricanes or tornados and the expansion of Antarctic ice and the fact it is f**king freezing in Russia, there is now a fair bit of evidence that even the IPCC knows that temperature sensitivity to increased CO2 is more than a little bit lower than it was in their more hysterical reports.

Of course there is a bit of warming. Which people wisely expected as we emerge from the Little Ice Age. But it is not catastrophic and it is certainly not nearly enough to justify loony ideas like 50% reductions in CO2 emission or “carbon” taxes.

The wheels on the global warming/climate change bus are falling off because actual scientists are making observations of actual nature and, on examination, nature is making mincemeat of the doom laden computer models relied upon by the IPCC.

It will take a while but a lot of the speculation which was passed off as science will be refuted. Data will be collected and better models created.

Which is how an infant science should proceed – a fact lost on the global warming hysterics.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Stand Down the Panic

  1. John Cross says:

    Jay: as before, can you please look at this graph for the last 16 years and describe me what you mean by “no warming”. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2013/trend
    And while you are at it can you please justify your comment about sea level rise in light of http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035
    (and once we reach an agreement on those two, we can look at the rest).

    If the IPCC does report that current research indicated that the sensitivity is less than we previously thought then great, we have a bit more time. But I am happy to critically accept either an increase or a decrease. However, I suspect that if in fact the IPCC report ends up showing sensitivity still the same you would pronounce that they folded to political pressure or to some sort of international conspiracy.

    An infant science should proceed as any science should. Making predictions, theories and observations. I am not sure why you would call climate science in its infancy; the greenhouse theory was worked out 100 years ago and the physics of atmospheric gases was examined by the US military 50 years ago. Of course if you hold obfuscation to be your gold standard in science, then you are correct – it is much older than climate science.

    Regards,
    John

    • jaycurrie says:

      Merry Christmas John.

      On sea level, I would avoid Rahmstorf simply because he tends to torque the numbers to suit an alarmist agenda. Try NOAA here for satellite numbers without the twist.

      Here’s a graphic from the recently leaked IPCC Second Order Draft:

      Have to say I am pretty relaxed about sea level rise and, delightfully, at the moment so is the IPCC (though many of us on the sceptic side expect the final report to have this level of observation and the honesty it requires eliminated from the Final Draft.)

      As to warming, the tiny amount of warming your chart shows in 16 years is barely statistically distinguishable from natural variability. Again, nothing to be concerned about and certainly no reason to re-invent the West’s sputtering economy.

      And for slightly less massaged numbers you might want to try HADCrut3 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2013/trend

      • John Cross says:

        And a Happy New years to you Jay:

        I have been taking some time off and away from the more elegant forms of communications so apologies for the delay in this this response. However ….

        In regards to Rahmstorf, you realize that as a logical argument, calling someone alarmist is not particularly valid. If you can show why his numbers are distorted to suit an agenda then you would have a much stronger argument.

        The data for warming that I used was the data that have been validated by Muller who was regarded as a strong skeptic and backed by the Koch brothers so I figured that it was acceptable to you. However sticking with the dataset that you prefer, if you add an extra year (i.e. start in 1996) it is interesting to see how much that changes your results. A good indication that you need longer timespans to get meaningful results.

        Finally, I am intrigued by your comment about the level of honesty required eliminated by the IPCC. So if they don’t agree with your political point of view, then they are dishonest? An intriguing way to do science.

        Regards,
        John

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: