Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

[Jack Hays]

Your bloggers tend to make tempests in teapots when the results aren’t what they want.

I’m sure this will be settled in a few months, and it will be another kefluffle that bloggers will pretend is important for years.

Given your failed predictions thus far in this thread I would have thought you would choose reticence now.

 

[calamity]

"State of the art climate science" discredited itself long before I became a climate skeptic. I merely document the ruin.

:lol:

Science corrects its mistakes; deniers double down on false narratives. That’s why the former is taken serious, while the latter are the butts of jokes.

 

[bubbabgone]

Major Math Error Puts Widely-Cited Global Warming Study ... - Peak Oil


https://peakoil.com/enviroment/major-math-error-puts-widely.../comment-page-1



2 days ago - Major Math Error Puts Widely-Cited Global Warming Study On Ice ... Lewis is correct that the linear trends reported by Resplandy et al are not ...

"Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations,” wrote Lewis in a blog post published on climate scientist Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. website.
After correcting the math error, Lewis found that the paper’s rate of oceanic warming “is about average compared with the other estimates they showed, and below the average for 1993–2016.”
Lewis’s conclusion was replicated and supported by University of Colorado professor, Roger Pielke, Jr., who tweeted his work.

Lewis found the study’s authors, led by Princeton University scientist Laure Resplandy, erred in calculating the linear trend of estimated ocean warming between 1991 and 2016. Lewis has also criticized climate model predictions, which generally over-predict warming.
Resplandy and her colleagues estimated ocean heat by measuring the volume of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the atmosphere. The results: the oceans took up 60 percent more heat than previously thought. The study only sent alarm bells ringing, especially in the wake of the United Nations’ latest climate assessment. –Daily Caller
​

Lewis is correct that the linear trends reported by Resplandy et al are not matched by what the data indicate. See figure below which I just created based on data provided by Resplandy et al.
Mistakes happen in science, that’s no crime.
What matters more is what you do next. /END pic.twitter.com/ylFqZngbmm
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) November 6, 2018
​

Oh well, you know what they say, throw the shizz against the wall and see if it'll stick. With any luck it'll become a thread topic.

 

[Jack Hays]

:lol:

Science corrects its mistakes; deniers double down on false narratives. That’s why the former is taken serious, while the latter are the butts of jokes.

Some nobody on a denier blog: 1
Nature: 0

 

[Threegoofs]

I am very confident that I would be able to understand it but I can't be bothered to read it as there clearly is nothing new in it. Others here would have used it if there was.

I am equally confident that you would be utterly unable to understand it which is why you don't bother to read it since it would not help you to cut and paste it to support your arguments. You have to understand a thing to use it.

Ah, yes. The IPCC report that specifically answers the question you keep asking and that was well described on a thread you participated in isn’t worth your time to read because ‘it has clearly nothing new in it’.

Your posts are getting more and more embarrassing as time goes on.

 

[Threegoofs]

I suggest dropping the violet font. That would be the bare minimum requirement, if you want to be taken seriously in adult conversation. As it stands now, Quaestio is far more persuasive in black text than your bright blue comments will ever manage to be.

The font is not the problem.

That’s like saying you can improve a Ford Pinto by changing its color.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have noticed that when the other side has run out of argument and does not wish to admit that they have lost they either complain about the ink or my spelling.

I have some people come back and complain about my grammar or spelling, because they are trying to get even for their lack of comprehension that words have meaning.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Your claim was false then and it's false now. In the resurrected thread, LoP explained it clearly in #149 and #158. I contented myself with noting in #150 your "willful misreading." Interesting that you would try to deflect from the thread topic by revisiting your previous falsehood.

My post 159: "And he still can't show an actual lie in the writing... "

 

[calamity]

The font is not the problem.

That’s like saying you can improve a Ford Pinto by changing its color.

Going back to black font won't correct his many mistakes, but it will at least look like an adult wrote the post instead of a child scribbling in crayon.

 

[calamity]

Your claim was false then and it's false now. In the resurrected thread, LoP explained it clearly in #149 and #158. I contented myself with noting in #150 your "willful misreading." Interesting that you would try to deflect from the thread topic by revisiting your previous falsehood.

I have no doubt that the posts you refer to above bear absolutely no semblance to reality.

 

[calamity]

I have noticed that when the other side has run out of argument and does not wish to admit that they have lost they either complain about the ink or my spelling.

There is no reason to post in violet. And, yes, it does take away from your argument.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Ah, yes. The IPCC report that specifically answers the question you keep asking and that was well described on a thread you participated in isn’t worth your time to read because ‘it has clearly nothing new in it’.

Your posts are getting more and more embarrassing as time goes on.

Who describe what and quoted what out of it?

You just saying that you described it when everybody knows you have never read it does not count.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I have no doubt that the posts you refer to above bear absolutely no semblance to reality.

You have no doubt or any ability to argue against them as you have no clue about the subject at all.

 

[Tim the plumber]

There is no reason to post in violet. And, yes, it does take away from your argument.

Well in the tradition of the Yo-Momma match;

At least I got an argument.

 

[Threegoofs]

Who describe what and quoted what out of it?

You just saying that you described it when everybody knows you have never read it does not count.

Here. You’ll now be impressed with my deep knowledge.

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_ts.pdf

———————————
1.5°C and 2°C warmer worlds
The global climate has changed relative to the preindustrial period with multiple lines of evidence that these changes have had impacts on organisms and ecosystems, as well as human systems and well-being (high confidence). The increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), which reached 0.87°C in 2006-2015 relative to 1850-1900, has increased the frequency and magnitude of impacts (high confidence), strengthening evidence of how increasing GMST to 1.5°C or higher could impact natural and human systems (1.5°C versus 2°C) {3.3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, Cross- Chapter Boxes 6, 7 and 8 in this Chapter}.
Human-induced global warming has already caused multiple observed changes in the climate system (high confidence). In particular this includes increases in both land and ocean temperatures, as well as more frequent heatwaves in most land regions (high confidence). There is also high confidence that it has caused an increase in the frequency and duration of marine heatwaves. Further, there is evidence that global warming has led to an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation events at global scale (medium confidence), as well as having increased the risk of drought in the Mediterranean region (medium confidence) {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4}.
Changes in temperature extremes and heavy precipitation indices are detectable in observations for the 1991-2010 period compared with 1960-1979, when a global warming of approximately 0.5°C occurred (high confidence). The observed tendencies over that time frame are consistent with attributed changes since the mid-20th century (high confidence) {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}.
There is no single ‘1.5°C warmer world’ (high confidence). Important aspects to consider (beside that of global temperature) are the possible occurrence of an overshoot and its associated peak warming and duration, how stabilization of global surface temperature at 1.5°C is achieved, how policies might be able to influence the resilience of human and natural systems, and the nature of the regional and sub-regional risks (high confidence). Overshooting poses large risks for natural and human systems, especially if the temperature at peak warming is high, because some risks may be long-lasting and irreversible, such as the loss of many ecosystems (high confidence). The rate of change for several types of risks may also have relevance with potentially large risks in case of a rapid rise to overshooting temperatures, even if a decrease to 1.5°C may be achieved at the end of the 21st century or later (medium confidence). If overshoot is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very small, which implies that large, immediate, and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence) {Cross-Chapter Box 8 in this Chapter; Sections 3.2 and 3.6.2}.
Substantial global differences in temperature and extreme events are expected if GMST reaches 1.5°C versus 2°C above the preindustrial period (high confidence). Regional surface temperature means and extremes are higher at 2°C as compared to 1.5°C for oceans (high confidence). Temperature means and extremes are higher at 2°C as compared to 1.5°C global warming in most land regions, and display in some regions 2-3 times greater increases when compared to GMST (high confidence). There are also substantial increases in temperature means and extremes at 1.5°C versus present (high confidence) {3.3.1, 3.3.2}.
Substantial changes in regional climate occur between 1.5°C and 2°C (high confidence), depending on the variable and region in question (high confidence). Particularly large differences are found for temperature extremes (high confidence). Hot extremes display the strongest warming in mid-latitudes in the warm season (with increases of up to 3°C at 1.5°C of warming, i.e. a factor of two) and at high-latitudes in the cold season (with increases of up to 4.5°C at 1.5°C of warming, i.e. a factor of three) (high confidence). The strongest warming of hot extremes is found in Central and Eastern North America, Central and Southern Europe, the Mediterranean region

 

[Jack Hays]

I have noticed that when the other side has run out of argument and does not wish to admit that they have lost they either complain about the ink or my spelling.

There is no reason to post in violet. And, yes, it does take away from your argument.

The ad inkium argument is even less impressive than ad hominem.

 

[Jack Hays]

I have no doubt that the posts you refer to above bear absolutely no semblance to reality.

Wrong again, but I'm glad you apparently didn't bother to look because that entire tangent was just an attempt to derail the thread.

 

[calamity]

Wrong again, but I'm glad you apparently didn't bother to look because that entire tangent was just an attempt to derail the thread.

I know what I am not "wrong" about. Global warming is worse than we thought.

 

[Jack Hays]

I know what I am not "wrong" about. Global warming is worse than we thought.

Then you'll be relieved to learn the current cooling will probably last for years, perhaps decades.

 

[Threegoofs]

Then you'll be relieved to learn the current cooling will probably last for years, perhaps decades.

At least, that’s what the blogs have been saying.

For about 20 years! [emoji23]

 

[Tim the plumber]

Here. You’ll now be impressed with my deep knowledge.

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_ts.pdf

———————————
1.5°C and 2°C warmer worlds
The global climate has changed relative to the preindustrial period with multiple lines of evidence that these changes have had impacts on organisms and ecosystems, as well as human systems and well-being (high confidence). The increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST), which reached 0.87°C in 2006-2015 relative to 1850-1900, has increased the frequency and magnitude of impacts (high confidence), strengthening evidence of how increasing GMST to 1.5°C or higher could impact natural and human systems (1.5°C versus 2°C) {3.3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, Cross- Chapter Boxes 6, 7 and 8 in this Chapter}.
Human-induced global warming has already caused multiple observed changes in the climate system (high confidence). In particular this includes increases in both land and ocean temperatures, as well as more frequent heatwaves in most land regions (high confidence). There is also high confidence that it has caused an increase in the frequency and duration of marine heatwaves. Further, there is evidence that global warming has led to an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation events at global scale (medium confidence), as well as having increased the risk of drought in the Mediterranean region (medium confidence) {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4}.
Changes in temperature extremes and heavy precipitation indices are detectable in observations for the 1991-2010 period compared with 1960-1979, when a global warming of approximately 0.5°C occurred (high confidence). The observed tendencies over that time frame are consistent with attributed changes since the mid-20th century (high confidence) {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}.
There is no single ‘1.5°C warmer world’ (high confidence). Important aspects to consider (beside that of global temperature) are the possible occurrence of an overshoot and its associated peak warming and duration, how stabilization of global surface temperature at 1.5°C is achieved, how policies might be able to influence the resilience of human and natural systems, and the nature of the regional and sub-regional risks (high confidence). Overshooting poses large risks for natural and human systems, especially if the temperature at peak warming is high, because some risks may be long-lasting and irreversible, such as the loss of many ecosystems (high confidence). The rate of change for several types of risks may also have relevance with potentially large risks in case of a rapid rise to overshooting temperatures, even if a decrease to 1.5°C may be achieved at the end of the 21st century or later (medium confidence). If overshoot is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very small, which implies that large, immediate, and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence) {Cross-Chapter Box 8 in this Chapter; Sections 3.2 and 3.6.2}.
Substantial global differences in temperature and extreme events are expected if GMST reaches 1.5°C versus 2°C above the preindustrial period (high confidence). Regional surface temperature means and extremes are higher at 2°C as compared to 1.5°C for oceans (high confidence). Temperature means and extremes are higher at 2°C as compared to 1.5°C global warming in most land regions, and display in some regions 2-3 times greater increases when compared to GMST (high confidence). There are also substantial increases in temperature means and extremes at 1.5°C versus present (high confidence) {3.3.1, 3.3.2}.
Substantial changes in regional climate occur between 1.5°C and 2°C (high confidence), depending on the variable and region in question (high confidence). Particularly large differences are found for temperature extremes (high confidence). Hot extremes display the strongest warming in mid-latitudes in the warm season (with increases of up to 3°C at 1.5°C of warming, i.e. a factor of two) and at high-latitudes in the cold season (with increases of up to 4.5°C at 1.5°C of warming, i.e. a factor of three) (high confidence). The strongest warming of hot extremes is found in Central and Eastern North America, Central and Southern Europe, the Mediterranean region

Great, you have opened it! A first!

Now try to use it to explain what is going to happen in some location, a local council that has traffic lights, which will cost that local council more to sort out than it spends on traffic lights. You will need to explain, in your own words, the mechanism that will do this, then cite the supporting evidence so we can see how bad it is going to be.

You are free to cherry pick any local council anywhere in the world and to pick the bad thing, the single bad aspect of a slightly warmer world.

 

[Tim the plumber]

The ad inkium argument is even less impressive than ad hominem.

LOL!!!!!!! Best all day!!!!

 

[Jack Hays]

At least, that’s what the blogs have been saying.

For about 20 years! [emoji23]

The latest in your string of false claims.

 

[Threegoofs]

Pielke: "[FONT=&quot]Lewis is correct that the linear trends reported by Resplandy et al are not matched by what the data indicate."[/FONT]

Aaaaand....

It looks like the Resplandy denier blog kerfluffle is, indeed, a tempest in a denier teapot.

From the co author:

Study: Ocean Warming Detected from Atmospheric Gas Measurements | Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego

Yes, the oceanographer is named ‘Keeling’, and is dad was the originator of the famous Keeling curve.

 

[calamity]

Aaaaand....

It looks like the Resplandy denier blog kerfluffle is, indeed, a tempest in a denier teapot.

From the co author:

Study: Ocean Warming Detected from Atmospheric Gas Measurements | Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego

Yes, the oceanographer is named ‘Keeling’, and is dad was the originator of the famous Keeling curve.

As is common in science, minor errors are quickly found, but the core of the study is sound.