the truth about climate change

[Joes Place]

I have never come across a risk management strategy like that for public policy, let alone one that could be called basic. It doesn't work that way. Sometimes it comes back to bite us; Cedar Rapids didn't prepare for a 500-year flood, and paid the price big-time in 2008.

Do you think science will ever -- COULD ever -- provide certainty that it won't rise 4.5 degrees? Or 45 degrees, for that matter? Especially when, if we know nothing else about the models used in the past, we know they have been inaccurate?

Just so you're aware....a 500 year flood is something that is considered a 2-sigma or higher event; something that has a <1% chance of happening. You can BET that CR prepares for a 25 year, 50 year, or 100 year event.

So, unless you are >99% certain something WON'T happen (e.g. a 500 year flood) it may NOT be prudent to spend resources in preparation. Regarding the 3 to 4.5 degrees warming, that is FAR more likely, from a probability standpoint based on available data, than a 500 year flood event. The probability curve is lower for 4.5 degrees, but there's something more like a 5 or 10% chance that could happen. I can practically guarantee you that cities/municipalities prepare for things with that likelihood of an occurance.

So, this is EXACTLY how municipalities weigh risks...you are just misrepresenting the probabilities here. We have a virtually 100% likelihood of 1.5 degrees warming already. 2 to 3 degrees is fairly likely on our present course. > 4.5 degrees is not as likely, but it's still a greater chance than a 500 year flood event.

 

[Rifler]

The real truth about the climate change issue is that there is no reason to continue this argument......

Is anyone here going to stop driving their car, heating their house or cease using any of the myriad of fossil fuel based services that we have all come to rely on? And even if we did, do you really think China, India or any of the developing nations would follow suit? Only a very small portion of the people on this planet are affluent enough to be able to accept the added cost associated with most alternative energy sources. The majority of the world's population would refuse to revert to what for them would certainly be viewed as a distasteful existence....

 

[moral_victory]

The real truth about the climate change issue is that there is no reason to continue this argument......

Is anyone here going to stop driving their car, heating their house or cease using any of the myriad of fossil fuel based services that we have all come to rely on? And even if we did, do you really think China, India or any of the developing nations would follow suit? Only a very small portion of the people on this planet are affluent enough to be able to accept the added cost associated with most alternative energy sources. The majority of the world's population would refuse to revert to what for them would certainly be viewed as a distasteful existence....

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33143176

The reality, she says, is that China is spending as much as the US and Europe put together on clean power."They are now the largest wind power market in the world. They have increased their power generation from renewables from really nothing 10 years ago - and now it's 25%. These are very important signals that China is moving into the right direction."

 

[Joes Place]

Scientists have known for some time that a large amount of volcanic activity results in more CO2 than is present on Earth today, but with previous methods, it had been tricky to come up with a reliable estimate.

This is a common myth, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. This myth is completely inconsistent with the best scientific evidence, however.

Total volcanic activity for terrestrial and sub-marine volcanoes over a year is dwarfed by manmade emissions by a factor of about 130:1. That is not a typo - our fossil fuel burning produces more than 100x the CO2 released to the atmosphere than all volcanic activity combined. Every year.

You can look that up yourself, or I can dig up the USGS page which provides the links to that data.

 

[Rifler]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33143176

The reality, she says, is that China is spending as much as the US and Europe put together on clean power."They are now the largest wind power market in the world. They have increased their power generation from renewables from really nothing 10 years ago - and now it's 25%. These are very important signals that China is moving into the right direction."[/QUOTE

Add that to their leading role in the development of dirty coal fired power plants and China is a net negative....

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I didn't say you posted something that wasn't true. I implied you posted something that wasn't serious.

You were responding to my comment asking for the name of anyone who has denied any sort of climate change. At least, your post was appended to that post and quoted it. But you didn't provide an answer. Instead, you cited changing attitudes of some skeptics, which -- to my knowledge -- nobody has denied occurred, just as some AGW alarmists have changed in their predictions.

I am not aware of anyone claiming that climate does not, has not, or will not in the future change. If you are, please enlighten me. If you're going to ignore my post and "answer" something else, I don't think you're being serious.

Ahhhh...so you're relying on the canard that since the Earth has warmed and cooled in the past that man can't possibly be affecting the climate now. Sorry...I thought you were being serious. That the Earth has naturally warmed and cooled in the past has about as much bearing on what's occurring with the climate now as the fact that forests burned before man was around. Would you use your faulty logic to claim that man-made forest fires are a myth? That's exactly how serious you are with your question.

 

[Vroom_C14]

This is a common myth, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. This myth is completely inconsistent with the best scientific evidence, however.

Total volcanic activity for terrestrial and sub-marine volcanoes over a year is dwarfed by manmade emissions by a factor of about 130:1. That is not a typo - our fossil fuel burning produces more than 100x the CO2 released to the atmosphere than all volcanic activity combined. Every year.

You can look that up yourself, or I can dig up the USGS page which provides the links to that data.

This is a common myth, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. This myth is completely inconsistent with the best scientific evidence, however.

Total volcanic activity for terrestrial and sub-marine volcanoes over a year is dwarfed by manmade emissions by a factor of about 130:1. That is not a typo - our fossil fuel burning produces more than 100x the CO2 released to the atmosphere than all volcanic activity combined. Every year.

You can look that up yourself, or I can dig up the USGS page which provides the links to that data.

Volcano's emit more CO2 than humans, but not human activities.

Who funds the USGS? Usually the studies will fall on the side of the funding...otherwise they are biting the hand that feeds them. That goes for BOTH sides.

 

[coloradonoles]

It feels so good to have been on the right side of this argument for so long...

 

[Lone Clone]

Just so you're aware....a 500 year flood is something that is considered a 2-sigma or higher event; something that has a <1% chance of happening. You can BET that CR prepares for a 25 year, 50 year, or 100 year event.

So, unless you are >99% certain something WON'T happen (e.g. a 500 year flood) it may NOT be prudent to spend resources in preparation. Regarding the 3 to 4.5 degrees warming, that is FAR more likely, from a probability standpoint based on available data, than a 500 year flood event. The probability curve is lower for 4.5 degrees, but there's something more like a 5 or 10% chance that could happen. I can practically guarantee you that cities/municipalities prepare for things with that likelihood of an occurance.

So, this is EXACTLY how municipalities weigh risks...you are just misrepresenting the probabilities here. We have a virtually 100% likelihood of 1.5 degrees warming already. 2 to 3 degrees is fairly likely on our present course. > 4.5 degrees is not as likely, but it's still a greater chance than a 500 year flood event.

Yes, I understand what a 500-year-flood means. Good grief.
And of course Cedar Rapids prepares for 100-year floods.
Your statements are contradictory AND confusing.

First, the AGW alarmists are not saying there is a 5% or 10% chance of catastrophic warming; they are saying the consensus of scientists is that it's inevitable unless Americans make radical lifestyle changes. If they were saying there's a 5% chance temperatures would rise 4.5 degrees in the next century or so, far fewer people would be as skeptical as they are.

Second, we have not been talking about preparing for a 4.5 degree warming, or for that matter, anything else. This is, in fact, probably the biggest bone I have to pick with the AGW alarmists. Virtually no attention whatever is given to preparing for the events they claim are inevitable (or in your case, at least, potentially possible). They concentrate almost exclusively on measures that are allegedly supposed to prevent the warming from occurring -- even though it is highly unlikely these measures actually would do so.

 

[Joes Place]

Volcano's emit more CO2 than humans, but not human activities.

That is precisely what we are talking about here: anthropogenic releases of CO2 primarily through deforestation and fossil fuel burning (coal/oil/natural gas).
I have no idea what you are trying to say with 'volcanoes emit more than people exhale', because that is completely irrelevant. Human activities emit 130x what ALL volcanoes do, every year. And that amount is only increasing with each decade.

Who funds the USGS? Usually the studies will fall on the side of the funding...otherwise they are biting the hand that feeds them. That goes for BOTH sides.

You can find SEVERAL studies which source/estimate volcanic CO2 output and estimates of human emissions of CO2. They are published and peer reviewed. The USGS doesn't necessarily measure them, they simply report them, AND they cite the references.

So, if you want to include USGS, several geophysical journals, a multitude of academic institutions on the 'conspiracy' list trying to falsify the numbers, I guess I really can't help you. The USGS and most of those journals have LOTS of ties with the fossil fuels industry, because so many people coming out of the academic programs for geology end up supporting surveys for the oil and gas industry.

We have an entire engineering school out here in Denver devoted to this industry: Colorado School of Mines. That school has TONS of ties to the oil and gas industry, and yet they STILL have a lot of discussion around climate change realities.

Why would the oil and gas industry bother funding them if they only run off and publish things on 'allegedly fake' climate change?

Here is a School of Mines Faculty member who is also a U of Iowa geology graduate:
http://inside.mines.edu/~cshorey/

He has a whole podcast series on geology, including volcanoes, and even a climate change segment.
http://inside.mines.edu/~cshorey/pages/sygn.html

Here is a quote from him, regarding human cause global warming:

Though it is impossible for a scientist to speak of natural phenomena in terms of absolute certainty, I would have to say that the present state of our knowledge leaves little possibility that human induced greenhouse gas accumulation in our atmosphere is not causing an increase in average global surface temperatures.

“Proper policy will have to take a long term view of the problem, and as such our politicians will need to have a proper respect for the results of well researched science,” Dr. Shorey concluded.
​

Here is CSM's 'About' page blurb:

Colorado School of Mines is a public research university devoted to engineering and applied science. It has the highest admissions standards of any public university in Colorado and among the highest of any public university in the U.S.

Mines has distinguished itself by developing a curriculum and research program geared towards responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources. In addition to strong education and research programs in traditional fields of science and engineering, Mines is one of a very few institutions in the world having broad expertise in resource exploration, extraction, production and utilization. As such, Mines occupies a unique position among the world's institutions of higher education.
​

But, according to you, School of Mines MUST be 'in on' the whole 'hoax', right?

 

[DanHawkPella]

This is the key concept from the article:

The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses.

This is the difference between the Alarmists, the Deniers and the Lukewarmers (who fall in the middle).

1. The Earth is getting warmer over the last 50 years (although is statistically flat the last decade or so, despite Joe's graphs above), even if that growth has been artificially increased with data adjustments.

2. Human generated CO2 increases have played a role in the warming - this gets into discussions about Water Vapor in the atmosphere and the Feedback multiplier being used. A doubling of C02 concentrations takes about 100 years, and the direct increase in temps due to that is about 1 deg Celsius or less (which is not a concern by itself). The feedback multiplier is where the entire question lies - see this link for an overview:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

3. The earth will continue to warm based on most scenarios of C02 production over the next century

All of those points I think can be agreed upon by most parties. The question is the next part:

4. Models suggest that the AMOUNT of warming over the next Century will create a Catastrophic effect on the Climate that we need to mitigate through any means possible (POLICY).

The Model predictions is where there is divergence.

The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) crowd believes in the Models, despite their total lack of credibility the last two decades. Lukewarmers (like me) believe in AGW (human caused global warming), but just don't believe in the C part - that it will be a Catastrophe.

This is because the Feedback Multiplier is still heavily uncertain, and recent results would indicate it is closer to 1.0 than 3.0 or 5.0, which is what the IPCC and the models have been using. A value closer to 1.0 would mean that we would see only 1.0 to 2.0 degrees C of an increase, which is most definitely not Catostrophic (and the first 1.0 degrees is beneficial, actually).

Anytime Joe wants to talk about Feedback Multipliers, we can do so. But that area is most definitely not "settled science", despite being the most sensitive part of the entire model (prediction). Everything else is just hand waving.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, I understand what a 500-year-flood means. Good grief.
And of course Cedar Rapids prepares for 100-year floods.
Your statements are contradictory AND confusing.

Perhaps you should reread them, then, in light of the 'risk management' post I'd made; you are the one who compared 'catastrophic warming' to 'a 500 year flood event', and all I was stating is that the probability of 4.5C warming or higher is GREATER THAN a 500 year flood event occuring (which is approx. 0.2%).

Bear in mind that MOST of the warming estimates refer to 'warming by the end of the 21st century', or 2100. There is NOTHING that supports the notion warming instantly stops in that year. Whatever momentum is already in the climate system is going to keep going up. So, when people state that 'stopping emissions now will do nothing to stop warming by the year 2100', they are lying to you (or simply deflecting/ignoring the information) about what is likely to happen in the 200 or 300 years past that.

We are putting into motion changes in our climate system which will affect and impact future generations for AT LEAST 500-1000 years, if not longer. Considering that is up to 4x longer than the current age of our own country, and about 1/4th of recorded history, I think we should be planning for the long haul here, not just for 'what is going to happen by 2100'.

 

[Joes Place]

Anytime Joe wants to talk about Feedback Multipliers, we can do so. But that area is most definitely not "settled science", despite being the most sensitive part of the entire model (prediction). Everything else is just hand waving.

No. What I have been repeating here is that we CANNOT RULE OUT the possibility of the higher feedbacks/sensitivities. Perhaps 1.5C is 'most likely', but most estimates, including paleoclimate inferences indicate the most likely is 2 to 3 degrees C, which is pushing 4-5 degrees F. Note that a mere 4 to 6 degree swing in global temperatures is enough to bring the Earth in/out of an ice age. So, if we want to be CERTAIN we will not massively screw up our climate, we should be steering WAY clear of that +4 degrees C mark. We are most likely already committed to a +2C mark even if we massively start slowing emissions now.

And I have no idea what you are referring to in 'the models' being entirely discredited the past decade. The models were running BEHIND the warming up until the late 1990s; now they are running a little on the high side vs. observations, but with the El Nino expected to run thru 2015 and into Spring 2016, we'll see where that pans out soon. Again, go back and look at the decadal averages plots and compare those with 'the models', not the noisy year-over-year data which is much more difficult to visually interpret.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Second, we have not been talking about preparing for a 4.5 degree warming, or for that matter, anything else. This is, in fact, probably the biggest bone I have to pick with the AGW alarmists. Virtually no attention whatever is given to preparing for the events they claim are inevitable (or in your case, at least, potentially possible). They concentrate almost exclusively on measures that are allegedly supposed to prevent the warming from occurring -- even though it is highly unlikely these measures actually would do so.

You don't even begin to understand the argument. We do need to prepare for the warming that's already in the pipeline - NOTHING can be done to prevent it and no one of any intelligence is suggesting otherwise. But if we don't act, that won't be the end of it. What you would have us do is prepare for the 100-year flood that's already coming and do nothing about the dam that's leaking upriver. It's idiotic.

 

[Lone Clone]

Perhaps you should reread them, then, in light of the 'risk management' post I'd made; you are the one who compared 'catastrophic warming' to 'a 500 year flood event', and all I was stating is that the probability of 4.5C warming or higher is GREATER THAN a 500 year flood event occuring (which is approx. 0.2%).

Bear in mind that MOST of the warming estimates refer to 'warming by the end of the 21st century', or 2100. There is NOTHING that supports the notion warming instantly stops in that year. Whatever momentum is already in the climate system is going to keep going up. So, when people state that 'stopping emissions now will do nothing to stop warming by the year 2100', they are lying to you (or simply deflecting/ignoring the information) about what is likely to happen in the 200 or 300 years past that.

We are putting into motion changes in our climate system which will affect and impact future generations for AT LEAST 500-1000 years, if not longer. Considering that is up to 4x longer than the current age of our own country, and about 1/4th of recorded history, I think we should be planning for the long haul here, not just for 'what is going to happen by 2100'.

No, you need to re-read some things

When I mentioned the 500-year flood example, I was responding to this statement of yours:

Basic rules of risk management literally scream out that we should KNOW it cannot be any worse than "X.X" degrees C and base our policies on that, NOT on the 'best case' outcome. Until we can be reasonably CERTAIN we won't exceed 2 degrees C,or more, we should be more proactive on the issue.

The point I was making is that what you call a basic rule of risk management is, in fact, virtually unheard of caution in the real world. Nobody, even the nuclear energy regulators, require such certainty -- and you, not I, capitalized the words to emphasize you meant CERTAINTY.

The problem you have -- again -- is that when it suits your purpose, you align yourself with the AGW alarmists, and when it doesn't, you don't. This whole controversy is based on what the public believes. I doubt if you can find a single example of ANY of the usual suspects warning about what the Earth is going to be like in 300 years. They are trying to scare us into taking rash actions by predicting dire consequences in the relatively near future. It is a fact that some AGW alarmists whom the public has been told to deem credible predicted the Arctic Ocean would be ice free this year or next.

But putting that aside, you didn't respond to my comment about preparations. Nobody seems to be making any, and you haven't mentioned any that I can recall. You are talking about actions to prevent or ameliorate warming, which is an entirely separate issue.

 

[codflyer]

Joe, Tarheel...the gangs all back together!

 

[thomasmulligan]

Joe, Tarheel...the gangs all back together!

gang of one

 

[Joes Place]

No, you need to re-read some things

When I mentioned the 500-year flood example, I was responding to this statement of yours:

Basic rules of risk management literally scream out that we should KNOW it cannot be any worse than "X.X" degrees C and base our policies on that, NOT on the 'best case' outcome. Until we can be reasonably CERTAIN we won't exceed 2 degrees C,or more, we should be more proactive on the issue.

The point I was making is that what you call a basic rule of risk management is, in fact, virtually unheard of caution in the real world. Nobody, even the nuclear energy regulators, require such certainty -- and you, not I, capitalized the words to emphasize you meant CERTAINTY.

hhhWhat!!!!??? Like hell they don't!!! They go through VOLUMES of documentation on 'risk mitigation' and 'failure mode analysis' to ferret out MOST of the possible bad outcomes. They do this to a degree of 'reasonable certainty', which usually has a statistical probability tied to it of a fairly small percentage of occurrence.

You can put whatever percent certainty on that you want. Do you want an 8 out of 10 chance we won't exceed a concerning temperature shift?
9/10? 99/100? Most failure mode analysis for something critical, like a jet plane engine or nuclear facility, will have something on the order of a 1-in-one million likelihood for a catastrophic failure. This is what much of engineering related to 'Six Sigma' methods is based around.

And the quote was "reasonably CERTAIN", which is NEVER 100%. You weigh the amount of risk against the probability you're willing to accept it happening. That is where the 'reasonably' part comes in. And, right now, we CANNOT rule out 3 to 4.5 degrees of temperature increase with ANY reasonable certainty - those values fall well within the established science estimates. The tail of the expectations runs out to 5 or 6 degrees C, but that is in the 'fairly unlikely, but possible' range.

Most scientists are convinced we WILL have >1.5C and the most likely case is 1.5 to 2.5C, with errors on both sides only the right-hand high temperature side tails off a lot longer, which corresponds to lower, but real risks.

I do not think you have any experience in risk management/engineering. You may want to leave those silly talking points for people who won't understand it and won't be able to call you out on the BS.

 

[Joes Place]

It is a fact that some AGW alarmists whom the public has been told to deem credible predicted the Arctic Ocean would be ice free this year or next.

I have not seen ANY credible scientist claim this. At all.

Maybe the Greenpeace folks and environmental crowd. But no one who actually works in glaciology.
If you can find scientific papers which made this extraordinary claim, please do link them. But most credible claims were that the Arctic may be ice-free by 2050. That was BEFORE the bottom fell out in 2007, and many now believe it could happen in the next 15 or 20 years.

But methinks you've fallen victim to a Strawman claim by an interest group, not a scientist. Why would you listen to an AGW 'alarmist' anyway? Listen to what the scientists are telling you. Oh....you cannot discern the difference between a 'scientist' and an 'alarmist', because you keep putting me into the 'alarmist' category.

Gotcha.

 

[Lone Clone]

hhhWhat!!!!??? Like hell they don't!!! They go through VOLUMES of documentation on 'risk mitigation' and 'failure mode analysis' to ferret out MOST of the possible bad outcomes. They do this to a degree of 'reasonable certainty', which usually has a statistical probability tied to it of a fairly small percentage of occurrence.

You can put whatever percent certainty on that you want. Do you want an 8 out of 10 chance we won't exceed a concerning temperature shift?
9/10? 99/100? Most failure mode analysis for something critical, like a jet plane engine or nuclear facility, will have something on the order of a 1-in-one million likelihood for a catastrophic failure. This is what much of engineering related to 'Six Sigma' methods is based around.

And the quote was "reasonably CERTAIN", which is NEVER 100%. You weigh the amount of risk against the probability you're willing to accept it happening. That is where the 'reasonably' part comes in. And, right now, we CANNOT rule out 3 to 4.5 degrees of temperature increase with ANY reasonable certainty - those values fall well within the established science estimates. The tail of the expectations runs out to 5 or 6 degrees C, but that is in the 'fairly unlikely, but possible' range.

Most scientists are convinced we WILL have >1.5C and the most likely case is 1.5 to 2.5C, with errors on both sides only the right-hand high temperature side tails off a lot longer, which corresponds to lower, but real risks.

I do not think you have any experience in risk management/engineering. You may want to leave those silly talking points for people who won't understand it and won't be able to call you out on the BS.

They aren't talking points. They're personal observations from watching public officials discuss planning for extreme incidents. Maybe the problem is with the way you expressed your opinion.

And you just aren't going to answer my question about the lack of interest in preparing to deal with it, are you? Why am I not surprised?

 

[Lone Clone]

I have not seen ANY credible scientist claim this. At all.

Maybe the Greenpeace folks and environmental crowd. But no one who actually works in glaciology.
If you can find scientific papers which made this extraordinary claim, please do link them. But most credible claims were that the Arctic may be ice-free by 2050. That was BEFORE the bottom fell out in 2007, and many now believe it could happen in the next 15 or 20 years.

But methinks you've fallen victim to a Strawman claim by an interest group, not a scientist. Why would you listen to an AGW 'alarmist' anyway? Listen to what the scientists are telling you. Oh....you cannot discern the difference between a 'scientist' and an 'alarmist', because you keep putting me into the 'alarmist' category.

Gotcha.

Just google "ice free arctic 2016" and tell me of any of those sources should be considered credible. Like the U.S. Navy.
Gotcha, indeed.

 

[Titus Andronicus]

What political aspirations does Obama have?

He wants to maintain control of the Democratic party and to control their agenda going forward.

He would also like to help in rewriting the Constitution.

He would also like to be King of the World.

Everyone seems to think that once he is out of office, the "Obama Problem" will be resolved. He is NOT going away. He will make a sometimes snarky Bill Clinton look gentlemanly.

 

[DanHawkPella]

I think there is a very good scientific premise for:

- Higher C02 = higher temperatures
- Humans are causing higher C02 concentrations
- Therefore, humans are causing higher temperatures

I'm not sure where people get information that would lead them to believe humans are not affecting temperature. Yes, nature may have more impact than humans, but in a hypothetical world where nature is having zero impact, I think one would have to agree that increased C02 would increase temperatures.

That being said, there are some arguments that the feedbacks may be negative (ie: below 1.0) as the earth self regulates itself, possibly with the level of cloud albedo around the equator, for example. I'm not sure even then that you could argue that the net temperature gain would be zero, but it clearly wouldn't be catastrophic. The feedback theory relies on water vapor increasing in the atmosphere, which I also don't believe has happened, at least to the extent argued by alarmists. That's the canary in the coal mine for feedbacks, but it hasn't happened to my knowledge.

I do agree with Joe on some of these points, in general (and as an analyst have an appreciation for the correlation/causality point he made above). And while the range of feedback multipliers is indeed still large (ie: not settled science) as he says, the feedback multiplier has been trending down and the IPCC documentation has followed to some extent (although it is still on the high side).

Point being: There is A LOT more uncertainty to the projections than Alarmists would like to believe, and/or are willing to share. They just want to shout everyone else down because the ENDS justify the MEANS in their view, so they feel justified on behalf of the planet.

The models may have matched well early on while nature was still adding fuel to the warming fire (1985-2000 or so), but none of them have done very well since then. Probably depends on how accurate one things they needed to be to be, well, accurate . But C02 has continued to rise per projections, while temps have relatively flatlined. None of the models would project that, because they are all heavily biased to CO2.

 

[Joes Place]

Just google "ice free arctic 2016" and tell me of any of those sources should be considered credible. Like the U.S. Navy.
Gotcha, indeed.

1) Your original claim was 'ice free already' or something along those lines.

2) The Navy reference I find states:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."
​

That is hardly claiming 'it will be ice free by 2015'; it overtly states 'it could be ice free AS EARLY AS 2016 ± 3 years.' So, that prediction is still 2 summers off (we have not hit the ice coverage nadir for 2015 yet), and the Navy believes the EARLIEST could be by 2019, the upper end of their prediction.

The Navy is using RISK MANAGEMENT tools here so that they are PREPARED for the POSSIBLE outcome of having to operate in an ice-free Arctic that early. Get it?

And, you are misrepresenting a 'lower bound' as a fixed prediction, which STILL could occur (my calendar says 2015, not 2016 or 2019).

Interesting that you are able to focus on the lower edge of the predicted distribution of possible outcomes as 'a given' here, but the predictions of up to 4.5C or more for the upper edge of the possible temperature distribution are to be generally disregarded.....following the Navy's lead, we SHOULD be acting/preparing for a POSSIBLE high end outcome that exceeds the 2 degrees C mark. Again, that is basic risk management, just like dropping down an insurance premium for your house or car, even though you are pretty sure you won't get into an accident, or have a major house fire or tornado or hail damage.

And, FWIW, summer ice coverage in the Arctic is dropping WAY faster than the climate models have predicted.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I'm fairly certain that if mankind wanted to destroy the planet for realz, he would have- during the 1960's by watching a james bond movie and seeing how the bad guy did it

 

[HRiscool]

I'm fairly certain that if mankind wanted to destroy the planet for realz, he would have- during the 1960's by watching a james bond movie and seeing how the bad guy did it

A documentary on what will happen if we don't surrender to the eco-terrorists. Informative, and surprisingly fun.

 

[Joes Place]

Just google "ice free arctic 2016" and tell me of any of those sources should be considered credible. Like the U.S. Navy.
Gotcha, indeed.

Also, you really need to pay attention to the DETAILS of what is being reported:

Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."
​

Not sure what their definition of 'nearly' is, but let's take a look at the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
Here is their link, with an interactive chart where you can click on the various years and see the Arctic sea ice nadir (minimum), which occurs in Sept/Oct. We do not yet have that data for 2015 (or 2016, the Navy's central estimate).

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Anyone who really wants to understand this stuff, it is worth the 5 or 10 minutes to check out the interactive plots.

If you click on 2007 and 2011 (2012 and 2015 are already 'up' on the main link) you can see that all of these years are 3-sigma events on the 'low end' as compared with the average sea ice nadir for the 1981-2010 average coverage. 2015 started out at the lowest winter coverage on record (thru May), but is not dropping quite as fast in June, although it is still tracking with the lowest sea ice coverages on record. Will it 'beat out' 2012 for the record minimum? Wait and see.

(FYI, the 'top three' record minima are 2012, 2007 and 2011, respectively; of all the years in the 21st century - since 2000 - ONLY 2001 shows a summer minimum that 'beats' the 1981-2010 'average' level.)

We still have 2015 through 2019 to see if the Navy's prediction of 'nearly ice free in summer' holds true.

The average nadir (or minimum) in Sept/Oct is about 6.3 million km^2.
2012 was down to 3.4 million km^2.

My definition for 'nearly ice free' would be a nadir of <1 million km^2, or about 15% of the 1981-2010 average minimum. Maybe your definition is 10%, maybe it's 20%.
A drop to 20% of the seasonal minimum would be <1.3 million km^2

But certainly, the Navy did not state 'no ice at all' and your generalization that 'all the Arctic ice will completely disappear' is a gross misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the actual claim.

Winter ice will still return, but as the summer ice spread grows smaller and smaller, the 'ancient' or semi-permanent ice will be lost forever which implies that eventually the winter coverage is going to start shrinking fairly quickly as well, and with it, the number of summer months of navigable Arctic ocean will increase.

Oh, and FWIW, the NSIDC definition of 'sea ice coverage' is an area of ocean with "at least 15% sea ice coverage"; the Navy may have a definition different than that (e.g. 30-40% sea ice coverage) which is more pertinent to navigable open ocean. Or, it could be less (but 85% ocean vs. sea ice/bergs is not terribly challenging for icebreakers and appropriately designed naval vessels to navigate). I did not find any specific reference to that, but it would certainly impact their 2016 estimate, which per their interpretation may end up being true.

 

[BrentJDiekman]

Also, you really need to pay attention to the DETAILS of what is being reported:

Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."
​

Not sure what their definition of 'nearly' is, but let's take a look at the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
Here is their link, with an interactive chart where you can click on the various years and see the Arctic sea ice nadir (minimum), which occurs in Sept/Oct. We do not yet have that data for 2015 (or 2016, the Navy's central estimate).

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Anyone who really wants to understand this stuff, it is worth the 5 or 10 minutes to check out the interactive plots.

If you click on 2007 and 2011 (2012 and 2015 are already 'up' on the main link) you can see that all of these years are 3-sigma events on the 'low end' as compared with the average sea ice nadir for the 1981-2010 average coverage. 2015 started out at the lowest winter coverage on record (thru May), but is not dropping quite as fast in June, although it is still tracking with the lowest sea ice coverages on record. Will it 'beat out' 2012 for the record minimum? Wait and see.

(FYI, the 'top three' record minima are 2012, 2007 and 2011, respectively; of all the years in the 21st century - since 2000 - ONLY 2001 shows a summer minimum that 'beats' the 1981-2010 'average' level.)

We still have 2015 through 2019 to see if the Navy's prediction of 'nearly ice free in summer' holds true.

The average nadir (or minimum) in Sept/Oct is about 6.3 million km^2.
2012 was down to 3.4 million km^2.

My definition for 'nearly ice free' would be a nadir of <1 million km^2, or about 15% of the 1981-2010 average minimum. Maybe your definition is 10%, maybe it's 20%.
A drop to 20% of the seasonal minimum would be <1.3 million km^2

But certainly, the Navy did not state 'no ice at all' and your generalization that 'all the Arctic ice will completely disappear' is a gross misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the actual claim.

Winter ice will still return, but as the summer ice spread grows smaller and smaller, the 'ancient' or semi-permanent ice will be lost forever which implies that eventually the winter coverage is going to start shrinking fairly quickly as well, and with it, the number of summer months of navigable Arctic ocean will increase.

Oh, and FWIW, the NSIDC definition of 'sea ice coverage' is an area of ocean with "at least 15% sea ice coverage"; the Navy may have a definition different than that (e.g. 30-40% sea ice coverage) which is more pertinent to navigable open ocean. Or, it could be less (but 85% ocean vs. sea ice/bergs is not terribly challenging for icebreakers and appropriately designed naval vessels to navigate). I did not find any specific reference to that, but it would certainly impact their 2016 estimate, which per their interpretation may end up being true.

I knew which horse to saddle on this one. As predicted, Joe owns it. He isn't doing it for internet pwnage, he's doing it because he is seriously trying to educate people. I can't tell you how much I've learned from this guy over the years. He's predictably, historically correct using the data available. When smart people talk, regardless of political affiliation, I listen. I've recently changed my mind on gun control. I used to say, hey, ban them. After listening to cogent arguments here, among other places, I've decided that guns are so prolific, there is no way to keep them from those determined to get them. Society shouldn't need them, but there they are. Genie is out of the bottle. Perhaps someone could fell a threat with a gun. Perhaps the media does manipulate stories to ignore those that have used their guns to stop a potential mass murderer.

It's a moot point. We have guns, lots of them. We can't act outraged that someone will use them with ill intent. This is the decision America has made.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Solution to the GW problem - all libs get in a shuttle and go live on the moon. Problem solved for many, many 1000's of years.

 

[Vroom_C14]

I believe this has more to do with global warming than anything else...

 

[naturalmwa]

Solution to the GW problem - all libs get in a shuttle and go live on the moon. Problem solved for many, many 1000's of years.

Newt Gingrich fan?

 

[Vroom_C14]

Newt Gingrich fan?

Nah, not really.

 

[Lone Clone]

1) Your original claim was 'ice free already' or something along those lines.

2) The Navy reference I find states:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."
​

That is hardly claiming 'it will be ice free by 2015'; it overtly states 'it could be ice free AS EARLY AS 2016 ± 3 years.' So, that prediction is still 2 summers off (we have not hit the ice coverage nadir for 2015 yet), and the Navy believes the EARLIEST could be by 2019, the upper end of their prediction.

The Navy is using RISK MANAGEMENT tools here so that they are PREPARED for the POSSIBLE outcome of having to operate in an ice-free Arctic that early. Get it?

And, you are misrepresenting a 'lower bound' as a fixed prediction, which STILL could occur (my calendar says 2015, not 2016 or 2019).

Interesting that you are able to focus on the lower edge of the predicted distribution of possible outcomes as 'a given' here, but the predictions of up to 4.5C or more for the upper edge of the possible temperature distribution are to be generally disregarded.....following the Navy's lead, we SHOULD be acting/preparing for a POSSIBLE high end outcome that exceeds the 2 degrees C mark. Again, that is basic risk management, just like dropping down an insurance premium for your house or car, even though you are pretty sure you won't get into an accident, or have a major house fire or tornado or hail damage.

And, FWIW, summer ice coverage in the Arctic is dropping WAY faster than the climate models have predicted.

OK, I've been giving you credit for honesty. I think maybe I'll be a bit more careful of that.
What I wrote was: It is a fact that some AGW alarmists whom the public has been told to deem credible predicted the Arctic Ocean would be ice free this year or next.

If you googled as I suggested, you would have confirmed that what I said is true. Maybe you did and simply chose not to recognize it. I'm sure a smart guy like you knows how to Google. This time, try using "arctic ice-free by 2015"

And I'm still waiting for you to address my oft-repeated question about preparation.

 

[Lone Clone]

I believe this has more to do with global warming than anything else...

My guess is that those globes are warm.

 

[Joes Place]

And I'm still waiting for you to address my oft-repeated question about preparation.

You’re correct. I have not attempted to address your discussion point regarding ‘what should we do’. And I’m not going to address that while you continue to post myths and false facts about ‘there has been no warming in 15 years’ or ‘everyone said the Arctic would be ice free by 2016’.
Why?

Because it makes no sense to try and discuss solutions with someone who will not even identify and acknowledge the problem, and willfully ignores the facts that are readily available.
I have yet to see you admit that there really IS no ‘hiatus’, as I’ve posted multiple datasets which outline this for you quite clearly. Nor have I seen you admit that no credible sources claimed the Arctic would be ‘ice free’ by 2015 or 2016. Because there really aren’t any – there are just over-simplified soundbites of actual, credible predictions which have been mashed over so badly they no longer resemble anything close to what was originally claimed.

Here is what will happen if I make sound, reasoned points about ‘what we should do’:
You will run off and find another fake-fact or myth that asserts ‘there is no real problem’ and ‘it will cost too much to do that when there clearly is no problem’.

You see, it’s really impossible to have the discussion over ‘what to do’ with anyone who is unwilling or incapable of acknowledging the factual information available regarding the extent of the problem, and the risks that we may face by delaying action or by complete inaction. The ‘go to’ answer you will persistently have is to dredge up non-facts and myths which have no bearing on the actual discussion, resulting in just another Gish-Gallop over the actual data (again).

It’s important to FIRST make sure you REALLY understand the extent of the issue you are dealing with.
What you are trying to do here is the equivalent of getting CR to ‘prepare for a 500 year flood’, when no one has taken the time to find out:

a) what is the expected water level we’d see during such an event, or
b) how much area would end up underwater, or
c) how much infrastructure might be damaged and what would its replacement cost be from such an event, or
d) what would the level of economic disruption be during the flood event?​

And, thus, no city council member would vote to spend a bunch of money on a levee or bridge modification or road elevation, because they’d call it all a gigantic waste of money – “we’ve never seen a 500 year flood, so why are we going to spend our budget on this?”

It’s the exact same story here.

So, if you WANT to have that discussion on ‘what should we do’, take a few weeks or months to learn about the real extent of the actual problem – the ACTUAL data, the real elements of ‘risk management’ which are important to understand so then we can discuss minimizing the likelihood of the worst-case possible outcomes, and propose reasonable solutions to ensure they remain ‘low likelihood’ outcomes.

Like I said before, spending money to PREVENT some of the possible bad cases is like spending some of your own household budget on insurance premiums, so that you are covered in a loss and you have a fallback position. Climate change driven by human activities is no different – if we want to have a high probability of NOT screwing things up for the generations who will be born late this century and the next, we SHOULD be putting in a little insurance money to mitigate our impacts now, every year, rather than waiting until things get a lot worse. The earlier we start, the less overall cost we will incur, and we will be able to make those changes over several decades, not in a panic of having to do it in just a decade (or less).

This is the biggest issue I have with the GOP candidates/Senators/Representatives right now; by outright denying the problem even exists, they are effectively leaving themselves out of any discussion of what we need to do.
And by the time it’s apparent we really need to do something drastic, they will have very little credibility on the subject and may end up out of the discussion anyway. That will leave the ‘planning’ to those on the left and far left, who will be happy to lay out regulations and rules that have much worse and far reaching effects on markets than they’d expected or intended…

 

[Lone Clone]

You’re correct. I have not attempted to address your discussion point regarding ‘what should we do’. And I’m not going to address that while you continue to post myths and false facts about ‘there has been no warming in 15 years’ or ‘everyone said the Arctic would be ice free by 2016’.
Why?

Because it makes no sense to try and discuss solutions with someone who will not even identify and acknowledge the problem, and willfully ignores the facts that are readily available.
I have yet to see you admit that there really IS no ‘hiatus’, as I’ve posted multiple datasets which outline this for you quite clearly. Nor have I seen you admit that no credible sources claimed the Arctic would be ‘ice free’ by 2015 or 2016. Because there really aren’t any – there are just over-simplified soundbites of actual, credible predictions which have been mashed over so badly they no longer resemble anything close to what was originally claimed.

Here is what will happen if I make sound, reasoned points about ‘what we should do’:
You will run off and find another fake-fact or myth that asserts ‘there is no real problem’ and ‘it will cost too much to do that when there clearly is no problem’.

You see, it’s really impossible to have the discussion over ‘what to do’ with anyone who is unwilling or incapable of acknowledging the factual information available regarding the extent of the problem, and the risks that we may face by delaying action or by complete inaction. The ‘go to’ answer you will persistently have is to dredge up non-facts and myths which have no bearing on the actual discussion, resulting in just another Gish-Gallop over the actual data (again).

It’s important to FIRST make sure you REALLY understand the extent of the issue you are dealing with.
What you are trying to do here is the equivalent of getting CR to ‘prepare for a 500 year flood’, when no one has taken the time to find out:

a) what is the expected water level we’d see during such an event, or
b) how much area would end up underwater, or
c) how much infrastructure might be damaged and what would its replacement cost be from such an event, or
d) what would the level of economic disruption be during the flood event?​

And, thus, no city council member would vote to spend a bunch of money on a levee or bridge modification or road elevation, because they’d call it all a gigantic waste of money – “we’ve never seen a 500 year flood, so why are we going to spend our budget on this?”

It’s the exact same story here.

So, if you WANT to have that discussion on ‘what should we do’, take a few weeks or months to learn about the real extent of the actual problem – the ACTUAL data, the real elements of ‘risk management’ which are important to understand so then we can discuss minimizing the likelihood of the worst-case possible outcomes, and propose reasonable solutions to ensure they remain ‘low likelihood’ outcomes.

Like I said before, spending money to PREVENT some of the possible bad cases is like spending some of your own household budget on insurance premiums, so that you are covered in a loss and you have a fallback position. Climate change driven by human activities is no different – if we want to have a high probability of NOT screwing things up for the generations who will be born late this century and the next, we SHOULD be putting in a little insurance money to mitigate our impacts now, every year, rather than waiting until things get a lot worse. The earlier we start, the less overall cost we will incur, and we will be able to make those changes over several decades, not in a panic of having to do it in just a decade (or less).

This is the biggest issue I have with the GOP candidates/Senators/Representatives right now; by outright denying the problem even exists, they are effectively leaving themselves out of any discussion of what we need to do.
And by the time it’s apparent we really need to do something drastic, they will have very little credibility on the subject and may end up out of the discussion anyway. That will leave the ‘planning’ to those on the left and far left, who will be happy to lay out regulations and rules that have much worse and far reaching effects on markets than they’d expected or intended…

You misrepresent what I have said; you misrepresent my position; you refuse to answer a very simple, very basic, very relevant question. Given that track record, why should I attach any credibility to what you say about anything else, including the science?

Hell, your "reason" for not answering my question belies everything else the AGW alarmists are selling. They claim they know the answer to those questions. They are saying they know what will happen.....to use the analogy of the flood, they claim to know how high the water will get, and when, and they give us sermon after sermon specifically identifying the horrific damage that will result.

Did you try the Google again? Apparently not, since you didn't concede I was correct and apologize for claiming otherwise.

 

[DanHawkPella]

Ice Free Arctic predictions:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/...d-his-now-changed-ice-free-arctic-prediction/
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/predictions-of-an-ice-free-arctic-ocean.html

Acknowledgement of the Hiatus, and model failures:

Maybe the IPCC is a good enough source for recognizing the hiatus, AND the failure of the models?

Section 9.2: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence).

Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009), (Liebmann et al., 2010)).. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.

Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.

This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.

 

[Vroom_C14]

My guess is that those globes are warm.

All the friction those things cause is heating the globe...

 

[Lone Clone]

All the friction those things cause is heating the globe...

Yes. The IFQ -- International Fapping Quotient -- is at unprecedented levels.

 

[Lone Clone]

Ice Free Arctic predictions:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/...d-his-now-changed-ice-free-arctic-prediction/
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/predictions-of-an-ice-free-arctic-ocean.html

Acknowledgement of the Hiatus, and model failures:

Maybe the IPCC is a good enough source for recognizing the hiatus, AND the failure of the models?

Section 9.2: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence).

Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009), (Liebmann et al., 2010)).. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.

Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.

This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.

Does "model response error" mean "incorrect assumptions used in designing the model"?