The Reef Ain't Dead

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Apparently that can be problematic.

Canada is Warming at Only 1/2 the Rate of Climate Model Simulations

Observed data shows something else.

The average (mean) annual temperature in Canada increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2016, about double the global rate. Warming has been even stronger in the north. The average annual temperature in northern Canada (north of 60 degrees latitude) has risen by 2.3 °C over this same period, about triple the global rate.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...mperature.html

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

About the same level of certainty that tells you to purchase fire insurance on your home.

Right. Until the premiums go up to the point where you can no longer afford to pay your mortgage. Do you believe AGW will cause the Earth to burn down or become uninhabitable? Or more relevant to the point, do you assess the science as a whole supporting the notion of Stu's #5 existential threat?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Observed data shows something else.



https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...mperature.html

Duly noted, but it sounds like you need to take it up with Roy Spencer. Or can you account for the difference in expert opinion yourself?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Duly noted, but it sounds like you need to take it up with Roy Spencer. Or can you account for the difference in expert opinion yourself?

I have posted that to his blog.

Accounting for differences.

Short term vs long term trends.

Models versus observed data.

His own data shows both the Northern Hemisphere and the North Polar regions warming faster than the global mean.

His audience/ clients - The oxymoronically named Friends of Science.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Right. Until the premiums go up to the point where you can no longer afford to pay your mortgage. Do you believe AGW will cause the Earth to burn down or become uninhabitable? Or more relevant to the point, do you assess the science as a whole supporting the notion of Stu's #5 existential threat?

Do you wait to fall overboard before putting on your pfd?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have posted that to his blog.

Accounting for differences.

Short term vs long term trends.

Models versus observed data.

His own data shows both the Northern Hemisphere and the North Polar regions warming faster than the global mean.

His audience/ clients - The oxymoronically named Friends of Science.

Does your last comment mean you have evidence that impugns the integrity or credibility of his expert opinion on the amount of warming in Canada (vs. the models), or is it more of an honest disagreement amongst experts? Notwithstanding his skeptic opinions, Spencer seems well-respected in the scientific community. Suggesting that he's deliberately distorting CC evidence to play to an audience is quite an accusation. Can you support this with anything other than personal derision against the man?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Does your last comment mean you have evidence that impugns the integrity or credibility of his expert opinion on the amount of warming in Canada (vs. the models), or is it more of an honest disagreement amongst experts? Notwithstanding his skeptic opinions, Spencer seems well-respected in the scientific community. Suggesting that he's deliberately distorting CC evidence to play to an audience is quite an accusation. Can you support this with anything other than personal derision against the man?

I really surprised that he spoke to an audience that denies the greenhouse effect, which he does not.

I follow Spencer's blog and use his data. Spencer's data is respected. His claim the climate change is natural gets little respect. At least two of his papers have had serious issues with flawed peer-views. In a paper he wrote with Christy they mistakenly used the wrong sign in one of their formulae which then showed cooling. The corrected formula showed warming. His adherence to the Cornwall Alliance and his creationist views seem to cloud his science.

I also like his views on the sky-dragon slayers at Principia Scientifica. He thinks they are quacks and has essentially banned them from his blog.

[jackdale]

From The World Economic Forum

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The...eport_2021.pdf

An interactive version

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/vis...21-and-beyond/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Do you wait to fall overboard before putting on your pfd?

I don't wear a pfd. Harness and tether when particularly rough. More often at night. I'm a realist and figure if I fall overboard I'm dead. Why prolong it? But I keep offshore rated pfd's onboard should crew feel otherwise. I've now answered two of your overly facile attempts at analogy. Maybe you will now answer a question that has been recently discussed but you've thus far ignored:

Do you assess the science on the whole as supporting the notion that AGW presents an existential threat? If the answer is anything other than an unqualified "yes," then analogizing it to a home fire or falling overboard doesn't work. If the answer is "yes," then you're intolerant of the opinions of others who don't believe the risk of home fires are worth high insurance premiums, or the risk of falling overboard justifies wearing pfd's. The only other option is telling us that climate science's view on whether AGW poses an existential threat is "settled science," a position which I don't recall your taking.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I really surprised that he spoke to an audience that denies the greenhouse effect, which he does not.

I follow Spencer's blog and use his data. Spencer's data is respected. His claim the climate change is natural gets little respect. At least two of his papers have had serious issues with flawed peer-views. In a paper he wrote with Christy they mistakenly used the wrong sign in one of their formulae which then showed cooling. The corrected formula showed warming. His adherence to the Cornwall Alliance and his creationist views seem to cloud his science.

I also like his views on the sky-dragon slayers at Principia Scientifica. He thinks they are quacks and has essentially banned them from his blog.

All very interesting. But given the strong implication/accusation from your previous post, I'll ask again:

Do you have evidence that impugns the integrity or credibility of his expert opinion on the amount of warming in Canada (vs. the models), or is it more of an honest disagreement amongst experts?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Do you assess the science on the whole as supporting the notion that AGW presents an existential threat? If the answer is anything other than an unqualified "yes," then analogizing it to a home fire or falling overboard doesn't work.

A small semantic quibble - the housefire/insurance analogy works very well actually, on a number of levels:

• most people escape housefires unharmed, but then have to find somewhere else to live - very analagous to flooded coasts, failing croplands, melting tundra, drought, etc
• if you see a risk you try to mitigate it: houses are built to a code that attempts to reduce the likelihood or rapid spread of fire, and mandates the installation of alarms
• if you see a risk you try to mitigate it - part 2: one buys insurance beforehand to protect what they have in the event that something happens. Amount varies with likelihood. The more one does to reduce the risk, the less expensive the insurance is.

This 'existential' tack is a bit of a red herring, at least til it is well-defined and put into context. I don't know very many folks claiming that CC is likely to end humanity, or the planet. But, on the other hand, it seems very probable that it could upset some important natural systems, increase stress on ecosystems, accelerate the rate of extinctions. And there's STILL pollution, mess, rapid depletion of a finite resource. At some point, a large number of smaller insults has existential impact.

tl;dr: based on your current understanding, what do you think the future effect of AGW at current trends of consumption is going to be? Any response other than 'minor/negligable' means you see risks but are unwilling to condone efforts to reduce them.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Do you have evidence that impugns the integrity or credibility of his expert opinion on the amount of warming in Canada (vs. the models), or is it more of an honest disagreement amongst experts?

I gave you the observed data that shows that Canada is warming faster than the global means and that the Canada Arctic is warming even faster.

His own data verifies that the both the Northern hemisphere and the Arctic are warming faster than the global mean.

I have no idea why he resorted to models rather than observed data.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't wear a pfd. Harness and tether when particularly rough. More often at night. I'm a realist and figure if I fall overboard I'm dead. Why prolong it? But I keep offshore rated pfd's onboard should crew feel otherwise. I've now answered two of your overly facile attempts at analogy. Maybe you will now answer a question that has been recently discussed but you've thus far ignored:

Do you assess the science on the whole as supporting the notion that AGW presents an existential threat? If the answer is anything other than an unqualified "yes," then analogizing it to a home fire or falling overboard doesn't work. If the answer is "yes," then you're intolerant of the opinions of others who don't believe the risk of home fires are worth high insurance premiums, or the risk of falling overboard justifies wearing pfd's. The only other option is telling us that climate science's view on whether AGW poses an existential threat is "settled science," a position which I don't recall your taking.

I would not allow you on any boat on which I was master of the vessel. My standing orders require pfd's at all times. Tether are required at night or rough weather for coastal sailing, and at all times when offshore. When I am teaching, the government standards require pfd's.

I subscribe to the precautionary principle. It is based on foresight. (My first graduate studies program was studies of the future.)

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

All very interesting. But given the strong implication/accusation from your previous post, I'll ask again:

Do you have evidence that impugns the integrity or credibility of his expert opinion on the amount of warming in Canada (vs. the models), or is it more of an honest disagreement amongst experts?

The 444 page CCCR2019 Report, to which I previously linked, cites hundreds of references to supporting scientific data.
➥ https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nr...T-EN-FINAL.pdf

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would not allow you on any boat on which I was master of the vessel. My standing orders require pfd's at all times. Tether are required at night or rough weather for coastal sailing, and at all times when offshore. When I am teaching, the government standards require pfd's.

I subscribe to the precautionary principle. It is based on foresight. (My first graduate studies program was studies of the future.)

Good thing I have my own boat and am master of my own vessel.