JAMTAM

Some crossed wires in climate campaigners portfolio - as if CO2 emission, science-leadership (academia), and US Dept of Education are one thing. Fossil Fuel producers/consumers don't seem to have that problem, and they seem to be winning (if climate really is a political problem only as advertised).

how about precipitation?

can AGW be real, while a student at Cornell has been miseducated into thinking seasonal cold air anomalies in Oklahoma, that they don't remember from 10-15 years ago, is climate change? yes. this thread is so bizarre that I think there is some deeper root that has nothing to do with scholarship.

Ken, I know the argument that there is attribution without "reality" detection, which is a model based exercise. You got distracted because I said attribution. We can make hot air model statistical changes vs magnitudes worthy of a canonical climate change label, but for what? it's a nothingburger.

I'm pretty sure you need a model ensemble longer than 10-20 years to get any attributable signal but maybe i'm wrong. anyway, IPCC is all about AGW; if they set up asteroid impact scenarios maybe the context would be different.

yep

i don't even know anymore. we haven't had any asteroid impacts so we should expect about 30 years to experience a climate change by any normal definition. I didn't know this is a hot button topic.

Robust assessment of the time of emergence of precipitation change in West Africa - Scientific Reports Scientific Reports - Robust assessment of the time of emergence of precipitation change in West Africa

Why is 30 years unreasonable to declare a climate change from previous reference state? For example, projected changes in West African hydroclimate relative to late-20th-century are expected around 2030s with high forcing RCP8.5. Seems standard. www.nature.com/articles/s41...

if CC conventions have meaning beyond statistical detectability in GMST then similar SN emergence for ecology should also be around the 30 years. The coincidence that this is same period as classic climate normals simply means forcing is low compared to variability, unlike an asteroid impact event.

makes sense. i guess climate since 2000 has been favorable for that species in that location. not sure what you're arguing but anyway sounds like interesting work.

when variability of an "exceptionally stable" climate system is ±0.5C, as recommended by Rockstrom, then it takes a bit for the statistics to evolve in the way of a climate change. It's not very controversial normally. There's a bit of a disproportionate piling-on happening about a technicality.

If climate change is simply now any variation in GMST then we have some inconsistencies in messaging. However, 20-25 years is bordering on emergence of a forced signal, perhaps SN > 1, especially in the far north - so I guess that's what the dispute is about.

There is no dispute that human caused climate change is causing problems.

i hear you, but I'm afraid that model ensembles will not produce strong evidence of differences against a counterfactual based on 10-20 years. No attributional claim is possible. Internal variability doesn't go away when it's convenient.

Seems like, in the context of AGW, a 30-year time of emergence beyond some baseline is a fair rule of thumb for a generic place and person to perceive. Most places look and feel pretty much the same as they did 15 years ago, but maybe 30 years ago it was a bit different. isn't that the point?

don't most climate models get total planetary SW reflectivity trends totally wrong even in hindcast mode? And the ones that get it kinda sorta right can't match transient temperature changes...

Is the SN ratio of GHG climate forcing over such a period really so obvious that an individual at some location can clearly sense it in the same way as an asteroid impact? That analogy seems misleading, no? Isn't it conventional that the signal should only clearly arise over many decades?

careful how far you go with that mindset hombre.

The irony of Guenther is that her own language is classically propagandistic, such as weaponizing social sorting labels designed to promote certain narratives. I earned a social-media block for mentioning that.

Are we just "rolling 6s on the proverbial climate dice" or is there a real signal there?

95% of the variability is controlled by GMST. If GMST is rising, atmospheric CO2 concentration will never come down (or stabilize).

who's paying for all this work and for what purpose? what is the correct number of global warming papers per day?

is oil price dropping to zero one of these wishful thinking, strategic falsehood narratives designed to shape future market behavior?

Leaning on vulnerability talk doesn’t bolster mitigation arguments - it normalizes loss & suffering. The solutions to vulnerability are different if it is understood not as inherent, but as an actively reproduced condition that is being resisted by vulnerabilised communities.

usually thin and impoverished benches are not considered serious threats deserving such intense attention. Either there must be a philosophy that doesn't tolerate the existence of dissent altogether or the threat is larger than admitted.

"I'm just too tired"

I understand climate activism is exciting and sometimes disappointing, but keep in perspective that most types of environmentalism and humanitarian advocacy has been going on much much longer, with far greater setbacks. Climate is still all the rage and in popular media ...

that's quite a remark. thanks

I'm just asking what's in the stamped reports by those professionals with with accountability, those who compute IDF curves and hydraulic response using any information they deem justified, with option of course to tap into numerical climate models selected with validity for their AOI.

Identification of 1% or 0.2% annual chance floodplains are most definitely squarely in the purview of hydrologists and engineers, who, unlike academics, carry legal liability insurance. Any idea what they're putting in their stamped reports?

If California has a 1% 1862 style event again in the next 40 years are you suggesting climate change will have made it twice as likely? What do stormwater engineers and hydrologists say?