50 to 1 Climate mitigation costs 50 times more than Adaptation

Looks like the new UN report has left out about 15 years worth of climate data.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

For the past 15 years temperatures have risen 0.05 degrees Celsius. I guess they just decided to leave that part out.

 

No, maroon. That period and data was incorporated into the larger trend and complete data set.

From IPCC:

 

No, it was ignored and explained away

“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. There may also be an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing."

It was swept under the rug as "statistically insignificant."

It doesn't fit the agenda of the al goracles to say the earth's temperature has been at worst the same and at best slightly cooling for the past 15 years.

I guess the only thing that really can combat global warming is higher taxes and 1st class international air travel.

 

First, thanks to massparanoia for linking the text. A lesser man might have linked to some affinity website's 'interpretations'.

In the pdf, the section that appears to deal most extensively with the topic is on page SPM-10

“The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}”

If excerpts do not reveal whether recent T has been swept under, then read it all and make your own conclusion.

Previously I have linked to publications showing that natural variability (in the sense used above) is variations on heat fluxes between the atmosphere and oceans. I still think this is where the coupled circulation models are weak. The SPM (linked at 81) Only directly mentions oceans in the context of stating that ENSO is much better represented in current models. OK, but the elephant (or whale) is still in the room. What the big report says about 'fixing ocean modeling' is a matter of interest to me.

 

Note to MP,

Your playing with the big boys here! Be careful,

Icarus

 

I've seen your links about the oceans. I'm wondering if 15 years of "global warming" isn't in the oceans, and it's not on land where did it go?

 

Haha yeah ok. If by "big boys" you mean people that don't just throw around playground insults then I think I'll be ok. Although there are still a few of those here...

 

@86 either presumes that the heat is not in the oceans , or it is a false syllogism. I'd prefer to discuss the former, because the latter is intent to deceive with motives not known to us here.

On knowledge of the former, ocean-heat content (and its time course) is solely based on available data. If this is a subject of interest to Mass Paranoia, he should examine all the published science, not just what I've linked. Please do look also at the NIPCC 'oceans' chapter to be sure that nothing gets missed.

Oceans have heated, or maybe detecting a change is beyond our ken. I've sent you some papers to read, and there are many others. But the data are not completely satisfying. What to do about that? The past may be irretrievable, but we could might both agree that more ocean monitoring is an excellent goal going forward.

Don't tell me you don't want to know, because that would make it too easy to define you in a way I'd rather not.

The 'Earth-level' thermal radiation balance remains poorly constrained. Up (increased net heating), but perhaps debatable. Sussing this is even more expensive than more ARGO floats. But it is the gold standard, and needs better remote sensing. Needs more money. US (as leader) would particularly benefit from investing in this technology. Don't tell me there is no money; don't tell me you don't want to know.

 

This graph is either based on, or directly from the latest IPCC. Courtesy of RealClimate.org




------------------------------
Parenthetically, Mpara's 'concern' over a single decade of data is just denialist stupidity for other denialists. Oscillations and plateaus in the heating curves are expected over time.

 

I notice the denialists are not refuting the IPCC finding that the sun's natural variation over the period studied has at most added 0.1C to the recorded global warming.

Who wudda thunk ?? This is object testimony #1 in identifying denialism: they jump from argument to argument, hoping to seed FUD for another day or week.

I really do think it is time to stop arguing with AGW denialists. I don't try to teach pigs to sing, or argue with flat-earthers -- why exclude AGW denialists ? It is at best a waste of energy better spent elsewhere, at worse viewed as giving their idiocy some measure of standing through response.

 

"Don't tell me you don't want to know"

I'm not sure what you mean by this...

I haven't gotten a pm with the papers you were talking about, did you email them?

 

Funny; you're the only one here arguing and/or throwing around grade school insults. There are people who are interested in teaching/learning, and then there's you.

 

​

First I would say the warming in MBH '99, and defended by Jones, real climate, etc was over stated, and used bad methodology. They pulled out a single year of data '98 that was an outlier and hot, very bad unless you want to overstate natural variation as warming. Note even Phil Jones has admitted this recently. The pdf you added, averages temperatures over a decade, which is more correct scientifically. If you look at a ten year average, then the rate of temperature increase may have slowed but warming is still happening.

So where is the "hidden heat" - according to the excerpt, part of it was never there (added by bad methodology), part is in the oceans, part is reduced by changes in gasses and solar radiation. In other words, some was false caused by poor methodology, others were the mistake of inadequate modeling.

The real question, which we can not answer without better ocean models are what is the sensitivity of the earth to a doubling of carbon dioxide. This leaves uncertainty as to how much heating the ghg still in the system will raise temperatures in the longer term. We also can not predict accurately changes in solar radiation, but this is thought to be more minor than ghg forcing issues.

I did like the quantification in the pdf of how much antarctic ice is growing (1.2%-1.8%) versus the arctic melting (3.5%-4.1%).

 

Uncertainty is always present, and is quantified as a range with associated likelihood. The range will tighten as the models improve, but we already have a very probable lower limit that is very worrisome.

Science 101, for pseudo-rationals (denialist on the inside, poorly trained engineer on the outside).

 

I guess denialist means putting the IPCC's latest in laymans terms for explanation, since this denies part of the biggest claims of catostrophic warming. Again, none of my own research just the draft of the latest summary for policy makers.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

I guess pointing that out makes the new IPCC report authors denialist? Can you sumarize it better than I did. Poor methodology would use data highly sensitive to natural variability, and claim its really the trend and this natural variability was really caused entirely by human generated ghg. That is all I said.

The rest of my post came from here.

 

Remember, you are "debating" with one of gore's acolytes.

 

I am not debating, just pointing out that this "denialist thought" is coming from the IPCC. I applaud the IPCC in pointing out some of these corrections that support some of the skeptics point of view, that has been born out by more research and data. The IPCC is a political organization still, the science is in the research not the summary. This summary though IMHO is much better scientifically than the last one.

Denier is a pejoritive political term, it is entirely non-scientific. I hope people read the research and not just the political blogs.

 

Anyone can put

increasing ocean heat content

into google scholar. Not everyone will do that step. There may well be internet sites reporting that increases come from flawed methods. But I don't know if they did the step. As such, I would not repeat their claims.

But if a climate sceptic does, it means to me that such a person is only selectively sceptical. We need to pity that, I guess, unless we can fix it.

The full details of glacial melt, polar melt, ocean level rise, and ocean heat content are a lot to assimilate. But the general patterns through time fit together quite well. Were the ocean not heating at about the reported rate, then the fit would fail. I suggested before that fitting together patterns from different disciplines is a big deal for confirmation of theories. Missing the big picture probably means you're doing scepticism wrong.

Is it 'curable'? Sure, but not if you view people who could lead you out of the mess as profiteers, liars, acolytes, etc. Then you're stuck.

 

The people who are calling other people idiots etc. aren't leading anyone out of anything.

Neither are the acolytes or the profiteers.

Only the unbiased ones will, if such people exist.

 

The flawed methodology I was pointing out, that was in the IPCC summary draft was using individual years in past analysis despite knowledge of natural variation.

Skeptics pointed this out in the hockey stick graph used in mbh and included in IPCC 3, and tried to not have it included in the publications summary for policy makers. Indeed it was published with individual years highlighted for the blade of the hockey stick. This exaggerated real warming to that point, as it did nothing to smooth out natural variation, even though at the time many knew that one source of natural variation the ENSO at the time was increasing temperature. Indeed Bradley the B in MBH was on the side of not using that graph without more explanation of the flaw, as we saw later in emails that were made public.

If we look at average temperature over 10 year periods as talked about in the current draft, instead of individual years as displayed in some previous analysis, we get lower ghg contribution to warming up to 2000 There are many ways to lie with statistics. Part of the "travisty of the missing heat" was some of that heat was never there.