Jim Hansen on the standstill

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

The warming trend has abated. Everyone on all sides of the argument agrees with those sets of fact.

I actually disagree with this. Do you believe that decadal oscillations, like ENSO, can have impacts on the Earth's temperature?

[wygator]

Other Hansens

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by wygator

Is that all you've got, Fred...insults?

Any comment on the graphs posted above?

To which fake one do you refer?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

I actually disagree with this. Do you believe that decadal oscillations, like ENSO, can have impacts on the Earth's temperature?

I think it is possible, with my limited knowledge of climate change. I know Hansen (and you) are making the point that these oscillations are obscuring a continued underlying upward trend. Perhaps that is right. But in doing so, I think Hansen is also making an attempt to obscure a much larger, much more basic question;

What are the natural causes of climate change?

The impacts of CO2 increases, whether the increases are generated by human activity or not, have to be considered in the context of this original question.

As you and I have discussed before, there is a lot....A LOT...of uncertainty surrounding the original question.

Right now all we have is a roughly 16 year trend of increasing climate. And then SUBSEQUENTLY we have a roughly 16 year trend where climate increases have abated and even declined a bit. Further, recent studies strongly suggests that current climates are not historically unique. Current global climates look to be about the same, if not lower, than was present during medieval times.

Therefore, I continue to have trouble viewing the hand wringing over mankind's supposed impact on global climate change with much concern. Especially when I am told that the "only solution" is to dramatically constrain world economic growth.

The main reason I view all these apocalyptic solutions with such skepticism goes to my core beliefs; I am for the set of conditions that give the most number of humans the best overall benefit. And by in large, a healthy economy benefits humans.

That is not to say there should not be rules and regulations to mute some of the negative impacts of a growing economy. For example rules and laws constraining the release of known pollutants and the such can be a very good thing. We drink better water and breath better air as a result of those rules and laws. Of course the defining phrase is KNOWN POLLUTANTS. CO2 releases have not been demonstrated to be a known pollutant.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

To which fake one do you refer?

How about the one directly from NOAA's own website that shows their steadily increasing upward adjustments to the raw temperature record?

[Burke]

Was this standstill predicted by Hansen and his theories?

If not, why not?

And why should anyone put any stock in his predictions for further warming?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Dr. Curry wades in with her predicitions;

Perhaps ‘standstill’ is a euphemism for ‘pause’, but recall all the flack that David Rose received a few months ago for writing about the ‘pause’. It is good to see Hansen paying more attention to unforced variability.

However Hansen’s simplistic reasoning about what can be expected in the next decade is, well, simplistic. GWPF reports on the latest decadal simulation from the UKMO, which predicts basically no warming for the next 5 years. Should we believe the UKMO model prediction? Well, I have more confidence in the UKMO prediction than in Hansen’s back of the envelope reasoning.

JC’s ‘forecast’ for the next 5 years: It looks like the AMO may have peaked, and we remain in the cool phase of the PDO with a predominance of La Nina events expected (unlikely to see a return to do El Nino dominance in the next decade). I predict we will see continuation of the ‘standstill’ in global average temperature for the next decade, with solar playing a role in this as well.

It also looks like black carbon is looming as more important than previously believed, see article at WUWT.

Judith Curry

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I think it is possible, with my limited knowledge of climate change. I know Hansen (and you) are making the point that these oscillations are obscuring a continued underlying upward trend. Perhaps that is right. But in doing so, I think Hansen is also making an attempt to obscure a much larger, much more basic question;

What are the natural causes of climate change?

The impacts of CO2 increases, whether the increases are generated by human activity or not, have to be considered in the context of this original question.

As you and I have discussed before, there is a lot....A LOT...of uncertainty surrounding the original question.

Right now all we have is a roughly 16 year trend of increasing climate. And then SUBSEQUENTLY we have a roughly 16 year trend where climate increases have abated and even declined a bit. Further, recent studies strongly suggests that current climates are not historically unique. Current global climates look to be about the same, if not lower, than was present during medieval times.

Therefore, I continue to have trouble viewing the hand wringing over mankind's supposed impact on global climate change with much concern. Especially when I am told that the "only solution" is to dramatically constrain world economic growth.

The main reason I view all these apocalyptic solutions with such skepticism goes to my core beliefs; I am for the set of conditions that give the most number of humans the best overall benefit. And by in large, a healthy economy benefits humans.

That is not to say there should not be rules and regulations to mute some of the negative impacts of a growing economy. For example rules and laws constraining the release of known pollutants and the such can be a very good thing. We drink better water and breath better air as a result of those rules and laws. Of course the defining phrase is KNOWN POLLUTANTS. CO2 releases have not been demonstrated to be a known pollutant.

So what are the consequences if you are wrong?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by wygator

Here is NOAA's acknowledged adjustments to the temperature record through 2000.

This one always causes me difficulty. The adjustments are in the opposite direction of what we would expect, and account for 80-90% of the increase. What are the adjustments being made, and why are they being made?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So what are the consequences if you are wrong?

If I am wrong and you are right and we do nothing about GW, bad things *might* happen. If I am right and you are wrong on we go with your "solutions" millions will suffer and die needlessly.

[Burke]

Arguably, the worst lie the AGW folks tell is that increases in CO2 and warming are assuredly catastrophic.

Warming during the MWP led to prosperity. The Little Ice Age that followed was the catastrophe.

It's about time for another ice age, isn't it?

No one even knows what the ideal CO2 and temps are.

[GatorRade]

I like basically this whole post.

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I think it is possible, with my limited knowledge of climate change. I know Hansen (and you) are making the point that these oscillations are obscuring a continued underlying upward trend. Perhaps that is right. But in doing so, I think Hansen is also making an attempt to obscure a much larger, much more basic question;

What are the natural causes of climate change?

The impacts of CO2 increases, whether the increases are generated by human activity or not, have to be considered in the context of this original question.

As you and I have discussed before, there is a lot....A LOT...of uncertainty surrounding the original question.

I agree, but I am not sure that you are being totally fair to climate science here. I mean, they spend basically their whole career trying to answer this exact question. Perhaps NBC and Fox only focus on the science that has to do with anthropogenic CO2, but of course no even amateur scientist would ignore, what you are calling "natural" forcings.

Here's some info on this from IPCC: What Factors Determine Earth's Climate?

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Right now all we have is a roughly 16 year trend of increasing climate. And then SUBSEQUENTLY we have a roughly 16 year trend where climate increases have abated and even declined a bit. Further, recent studies strongly suggests that current climates are not historically unique. Current global climates look to be about the same, if not lower, than was present during medieval times.

Therefore, I continue to have trouble viewing the hand wringing over mankind's supposed impact on global climate change with much concern. Especially when I am told that the "only solution" is to dramatically constrain world economic growth.

The main reason I view all these apocalyptic solutions with such skepticism goes to my core beliefs; I am for the set of conditions that give the most number of humans the best overall benefit. And by in large, a healthy economy benefits humans.

That is not to say there should not be rules and regulations to mute some of the negative impacts of a growing economy. For example rules and laws constraining the release of known pollutants and the such can be a very good thing. We drink better water and breath better air as a result of those rules and laws. Of course the defining phrase is KNOWN POLLUTANTS. CO2 releases have not been demonstrated to be a known pollutant.

Well now we are into a totally separate question: what is the solution? Like you, I think many are likely to overestimate the costs. Perhaps we decide not to mitigate any of the changes, but this doesn't mean that the changes didn't exist.

However, I do think what an issue that you are ignoring is long-term vs. short-term interests. Even if you are only interested in human economics (and have no regard for the natural world), but most economists agree that climate change will be quite costly from an economic perspective. Today we can pass these costs onto the future, but the bill will come due, so we are just transferring the wealth (which I know you are against). In addition, we are perhaps already transferring wealth from the carbon consumers, like China and the US, to those countries that will experience the the most negative impacts, such as the Maldives.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by Burke

Arguably, the worst lie the AGW folks tell is that increases in CO2 and warming are assuredly catastrophic.

If you go read the primary literature on potential outcomes, you will see that this is not true. I think you keep confusing environuts with climate scientists. Sure Al Gore or the CEO of Greenpeace probably are focused on the possibility of catastrophe, but the primary analyses indicate a wide distribution of possible impacts, some of which are catastrophic, but others not as much.

Originally Posted by Burke

No one even knows what the ideal CO2 and temps are.

Now this is a strange line of argument. It is like putting a tax on the rich, saying that no one even knows what the ideal amount of wealth is. There is no such thing as "ideal". This is quite subjective. But with climate change, we have non-voluntary transfers of wealth. Perhaps Canada will enjoy increased wealth as US farms migrate up there and they inherit newly opened northern trade routes. But their wealth perhaps comes at a great cost to Brazil and the Maldives.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

If I am wrong and you are right and we do nothing about GW, bad things *might* happen. If I am right and you are wrong on we go with your "solutions" millions will suffer and die needlessly.

Interesting. So you are 100% sure that millions are going to suffer and die if we limit CO2 emissions. Can you walk me through the evidence that makes you 100% sure of that?

In addition, would those "bad things" that "*might* happen" be millions of people dying too? Millions more, millions less or the same number of millions?

[bluelang]

There's no uncertainty at all that humans produce a shit-load of CO2 and that CO2 traps heat.

Do with reality what you will. It doesn't care.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by bluelang

There's no uncertainty at all that humans produce a shit-load of CO2 and that CO2 traps heat.

Do with reality what you will. It doesn't care.

Actually there is uncertainty, as the greenhouse theory is still in dispute.

Reality says, "say hi to bluelang for me".

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So what are the consequences if you are wrong?

Taxes go up.

[Burke]

The climate has been changing for millions of years. Predicting it is, in large measure, an investment decision and not "wealth redistribution," as that phrase is commonly used.

[Burke]

The big problem with AGW is that no one knows how much the effect is and that the claims of leftists that they do are little more than pseudo-science being used as justification for power grabs. The apocalypse they are predicting could just as well be
Judgment Day stuff being decried by witch doctors.

Right now Hansen is admitting that our current standstill is a product of natural variation.

A standstill that he did not predict.

With the same theories that he is using to predict much warming later, as far as I can see.

Even Judith Curry seems to think he's an idiot.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Gatorrick22

Taxes go up.

I agree. If he is wrong, taxes would likely go up to deal with the consequences, due to the need to either abandon large amounts of infrastructure, that would need to be reconstructed, or to construct new infrastructure to protect our current infrastructure (such as new levees).