@newtboy,

"Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections"
Hogwash

IPCC AR5 predictions we can go check out are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Surface temp is in Fig. 11.9 page 981. They only graph for their 'middle' 4.5 case, not the worst 8.5 case that you call wildly optimistic. You can see even at the time they graphed it, the instrumental record sat on the extreme cold end of their projections, almost threatening to leave the margins of error. If you take today's today for 2019 and check it out we are sitting about dead center on their projected path. Doesn't seem like current temperature data shows their 'middle' case scenario underestimating anything, let alone their worst case.


If you look at the same for sea level rise in AR5 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

You can look for fig 13.11 on page 1181. Again, it shows projections approx 100mm sea level rise from 2000-2020, which more or less matches the instrumental record as we approach 2020 to verify. Again, not grossly underestimating.

The sea level rise is especially important to your alarms over Greenland being grossly underestimated by the IPCC. If they did grossly underestimate Greenland, it seems likely they also grossly overestimated something else if they more or less are on track with the overall sea level projections.

Again, if you just cherry pick a couple results and declare everything the IPCC did has been proven to over/under estimate things so they must be ignored, you aren't helping.

Lol...an old Glen Beck video he himself has admitted is nonsense. Great proof there Bob....I thought you said yesterday that CNN videos are all bullshit lies, today you link one that's been denounced by it's own creator as pseudoscientific propaganda as your good supporting proof?! You are just too funny, buddy.

Are you really just trying to prop up weak straw men for us to knock down? Because that's what you're doing, and it makes you look pretty dumb or dishonest, your choice.

And this one, some random internet dude actually claims there's no decent temperature data before 1950. Also, note the thumbnail graph has one line go to 1974 and the other 2018 on a graph that ends in 1970. That's all the brain numbing stupidity I'm willing to stomach for this latest dishonest industry attempt at spreading unscrupulous nonsense.
Would love to see the facts on their funding, but we won't because they hide their funding by funneling it through private third party donation companies so oil, gas, and coal money can be hidden and claimed as "small donations on this blog" but are actually well organized industry funding of industry shills.
Just asinine.
*facepalm

New, just released ocean temperature data has shown a dramatic increase in temperatures in the Northern Pacific, and a dramatic decrease in surface temperatures in the Northern Atlantic. As I understand it, those readings are not consistent with normal 'El Nino' patterns. Could this be the beginning of the end of thermohaline circulation? If that happens we'll be facing unavoidable, unpredictable, worldwide, disastrous climate change in short order.
Without the current created by the thermohaline circulations, the oceans die. Equatorial waters become much hotter...fast...and arctic and Antarctic waters become much colder...fast. Ocean organisms can't live through that kind of change, not in any sizeable way anyway. Without the oceans, the entire food web dissolves and we die.
On top of that, without the currents bringing oxygen to the lower oceans, they become anoxic. The bacteria that live in those deep waters will feed on the dead sea life and create toxic gases (hydrogen sulfide) which have, in the past, completed the extinction events by wiping out nearly all life. Once that starts, it's unstoppable and is the end. Let's hope these readings are just an over active El Nino.

What we do today has little to no effect for 50-100 years. That makes us at least 50 years too late to solve this problem, and we are still exacerbating it rather than solving it to this day.
We're hosed.
If you plan on having children in this climate, you are a child abuser IMO, and are adding to the problem with that one action more than almost any other action normal people perform. Your children will most likely not survive to old age, and absolutely won't experience the same quality of life you have.

I took a computer graphics class when I was going to college that talked about data visualization. Every time I see something on this topic, I am reminded about something the prof showed us in that class -- a visualization of troop losses during Napoleon's march on Russia in 1812-1813 by a French civil engineer named Minard.

Minard's chart gets a whole lot of dimensions and relevant variables displayed in a very simple, easy to read format. The "big picture" is evident at a glance, but details readily emerge when you look closer. It is a map, it shows number of soldiers and losses from cold/fighting, temperature data which contributed to those losses, etc.

I think that using CG including video and animation to expand on the ways that we visualize data is very interesting and exciting, but on the other hand depth and detail of relevant data is sometimes most impressive when it comes in a very simple package, like Minard's map.

Pretty neat stuff!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm not entirely a layman. I'm basing my opinion on searches through peer reviewed journals, ones like this. If you go and take a look, you'll find it is a pretty much bullet-proof decimation of the statistical methods used in the infamous hockey stick graph. It's not a run and gun hit job by hacks funded by big oil either. Mann's team that generated the original hockey stick graph already came to the same conclusion(with gentler wording) in their own most recent work.
Read Mann's article for yourself, he's one of the most vehement of those claiming the science is 'settled'. His most recent paper's calculations with different statistical methods though show that the earth was just as warm(or warmer) twice before in just the last 2k years.
The science that is settled is that the planet has been warming for the last long while. The science is settled that the planet has been warming over just the last 100 years that we've had instrumental record. The science is settled that mankind is inputting measurable and even significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is settled that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The science is settled that CO2's overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is less between 5-15%, while water vapor accounts for 60-90%. Science is well agreed that the role of water vapor in long term climate change is very poorly understood.
I challenge anyone to dispute the above assessment of the current state of scientific understanding, as my searching of peer-reviewed journals shows the experts in each relevant field agreeing with the above statements. Putting those together doesn't exactly add up to 'time to panic'. The only smoking gun that every was considered was the hockey stick graph that appeared to show that the last 100 years of warming was abnormal and unusual. The evidence for it is being thrown out though, and the newly recalculated data, even by the original team, suddenly looks a lot less worrying and much more normal.

That's probably the first rebuttal to climate change I've ever read that doesn't spout nonsense and lies. Kudos to you.
Out of interest, you say you're "not entirely a layman". May I ask if that means you have studied climatology or simply that you read the papers?
As for water vapour, it's not really a "forcing agent", it's reactive. It's better explained here.


My background is computer science but that requires a strong math background as well. When doing any manner of computer simulation of a complex and unknown system, the purely theoretical models are rarely sane. The reason being you can't model the bare physics of a complex system, so you have to essentially estimate(fake) the macro effects and properties. You get good computer models by comparing the results to real data and iterating back and forth until your model starts doing a better job of reflecting reality. The big red flag for me with climate models is the really limited real world data available to compare models to. I don't models aren't worthwhile, scientists are building them because they are useful. The trouble is what they are useful for. By definition, the models have to be treated as less reliable than the raw data we calibrate them against and run our sanity checks against. Neither does it matter how many different models we run, all that gets is closer to the same reliability as the real world measures that we have.

That ties into the article I linked, where the climate guys trying to rebuild temperature data to calibrate computer models from where themselves not strong enough in statistics to notice very significant flaws in the methods they were using. Flaws that systematically produced the results they initially deemed significant. Without a strong grounding there, I have to assess we are still left with a long road to go before really saying we understand this.

As for water vapor being reactive, I would very much disagree. Any climate scientist trying to tell you that is trying to simplify things for you to the point they are no longer being accurate. Ice caps melting, oceans rising, and cloud cover doubling is going to drive climate. It is going to force climate more strongly than anything else. The big unknown is just what parameters water vapor works under, it's simply not well understood yet. Computer models don't even know what sign to assign it as a forcing agent for pitysake. Most likely because it can act as both positive and negative based on environmental factors which are dependent on temperature among other things. When it comes to what kind of forcing H2O does the honest answer is that it's role is so complicated we just simply do not know. What we DO know is that currently, it contributes to 60-90% of the overall greenhouse effect. That tells me it's role in forcing is a much more worthy area of focus and study than CO2 and it's a crying shame so many more dollars are spent on CO2 than H2O when what we really need is to understand the whole system in order know what is really going on.

>> ^NetRunner:

@therealblankman directly measured temperature data has been around since the 1880's. Nasa's just compiled that data into a graphical video for mass consumption.
@visionep, @bcglorf here's a link to the scientific paper associated with the video: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImba
lancePaper.pdf
But it's not as if the questions you raise haven't been answered a million times over, and it's not as if coal and oil companies haven't spent billions trying to discredit the findings for almost two decades, without success.
Maybe, just maybe, you guys should give the benefit of the doubt to the people who've dedicated their lives to studying this stuff, and not assume that they've made some basic error that any layman can see?


I'm not entirely a layman. I'm basing my opinion on searches through peer reviewed journals, ones like this. If you go and take a look, you'll find it is a pretty much bullet-proof decimation of the statistical methods used in the infamous hockey stick graph. It's not a run and gun hit job by hacks funded by big oil either. Mann's team that generated the original hockey stick graph already came to the same conclusion(with gentler wording) in their own most recent work.

Read Mann's article for yourself, he's one of the most vehement of those claiming the science is 'settled'. His most recent paper's calculations with different statistical methods though show that the earth was just as warm(or warmer) twice before in just the last 2k years.

The science that is settled is that the planet has been warming for the last long while. The science is settled that the planet has been warming over just the last 100 years that we've had instrumental record. The science is settled that mankind is inputting measurable and even significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is settled that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The science is settled that CO2's overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is less between 5-15%, while water vapor accounts for 60-90%. Science is well agreed that the role of water vapor in long term climate change is very poorly understood.

I challenge anyone to dispute the above assessment of the current state of scientific understanding, as my searching of peer-reviewed journals shows the experts in each relevant field agreeing with the above statements. Putting those together doesn't exactly add up to 'time to panic'. The only smoking gun that every was considered was the hockey stick graph that appeared to show that the last 100 years of warming was abnormal and unusual. The evidence for it is being thrown out though, and the newly recalculated data, even by the original team, suddenly looks a lot less worrying and much more normal.

@therealblankman directly measured temperature data has been around since the 1880's. Nasa's just compiled that data into a graphical video for mass consumption.

@visionep, @bcglorf here's a link to the scientific paper associated with the video: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

But it's not as if the questions you raise haven't been answered a million times over, and it's not as if coal and oil companies haven't spent billions trying to discredit the findings for almost two decades, without success.

Maybe, just maybe, you guys should give the benefit of the doubt to the people who've dedicated their lives to studying this stuff, and not assume that they've made some basic error that any layman can see?

This guy makes some really great videos. I really think he does a good job being non-bias. Especially if you take the time to watch all his videos.

This e-mail thing is almost over, but I'm still wondering about the raw temperature data that Phil Jones allegedly deleted by accident. Isn't that the real blow to peer reviewed research?

Although I'm a skeptic myself, I agree with most of what this video says. The highly-quoted emails are far from a "smoking gun" exposing fraud. Reading too much into them, and taking statements out of context without actually understanding entirety of the conversation doesn't provide valid criticisms.

However, I agree with crillep that a reasonable criticism to make is that the leak does tend to suggest that these people were not particularly interested in the scientific method and making a hypothesis but being just as open to proving that hypothesis incorrect as correct.

A much bigger concern of mine from the fallout of this leak and the 'climategate scandal' is the information that apparently the CRU destroyed all of their raw, original temperature data that was fed into their climate models. Personally, I cannot come up with any reasonable explanation for that action. At best, gross incompetence; at worst, indication of fraud. A good scientist should want all of their starting data, processes, and plans to be completely open so that what they've done can be repeated and confirmed. That is hard to do when the original data magically disappears.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm a statistician. I see this kind of crap every day, and it gives my profession a bad name. I've seen some of the AGW numbers. The original data is never in the dataset.


As a statistician you might be interested in this article

"In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time."

1: The Great Global Warming Swindle was on tv, so not really a "lolol only pro global warming on tv lolol"
2: Seems you're not just a global warming denialist, but also a greenhouse gas denialist: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It, in addition to water vapor and other gasses (others which only amount for 8% of the greenhouse effect), holds infrared radiation in the atmosphere which in effect heats the surface of the earth. It's why we have a climate and there is any life on this planet in the first place. You increase the concentration of it and you hold in more radiation, causing temperatures to go up. This was all taught in any middle school science class across the country. Now that we have that little misconception cleared up, please continue.

3: and another thing: The Great Global Warming Swindle was made in the UK, shown on UK, and debunked in UK. It got debunked so hard Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. 'There was a fluff there,' he said. If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the NASA website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940—although that would have undermined his argument. 'The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,' Mr Durkin said: The original, and corrected versions of Temperature data from TGGWS, along with NASA GISS data
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/341/86488206qk5.jpg

How did they determine the temperature of the sun's surface in 1600? Is it based on counting sun spots? and for that matter, what data set did they use to determine global average temperatures in 1600?

In the biocab link, what is the data set they're using for the y-axis? And does the y-axis (change in T in Celsius) mean the deviation from average, change across a bin of time, or what? Why would they graph this instead of temperature in Celsius? ... also, why does it appear to go out to 2025?

And finally, do these two graphs agree in their temperature data? Its hard for me to say.

This animation shows the named storms from the 2005 hurricane season. During a re-analysis of 2005, NOAA's Tropical Prediction Center/National Hurricane Center determined that a short-lived subtropcial storm developed near the Azores Islands in late September, increasing the 2005 tropical storm count from 27 to 28. This storm was not named and is not shown in this animation.

Credit:
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

Additional credits:
Sea surface temperature Data by Remote Sensing Systems and sponsored by the NASA Earth Science REASoN DISCOVER Project and the AMSRE-E Science Team.

NCEP Cloud composite courtesy of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center.

Storm tracks and strenghts courtesy of NOAA's National Weather Service.

Blue Marble MODIS data composite courtesy of the MODIS Science Team NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and the NASA Earth Observatory.

Music created and produced by UniqueTracks. Fantasy (theme from Norma) - Vincenzo Bellini.