50 to 1 Climate mitigation costs 50 times more than Adaptation

Paleoclimate studies done since MBH98 could fill a book (perhaps they have) . Such studies that contradict MBH98 are rather few. This has been attributed to fear of opposing consensus, but the dendrochronologists I know don't seem a fearful lot.

It is fascinating that tree-ring responses to climate changed so strongly about 1960, and apparently with global synchrony. Probably a lot more could be learned from that. Sure we know that the change motivated combining mixed records in the single graph. But what does divergence mean? That's where the science shall be found.

 

According to the consensus, the mixed graph is a misleading display of the data. It contains the assumption of continued increase based on assumptions of future data that was not available at the time. The correct statistical approach would be to have used 50 year averaged data for the blade as that was all that was available for the proxy. I am not even talking about problems with the proxies which are now well known, but were not at the time.

Now 50 year averaged data is not very exciting, and in 1999 could only go to 1973, which misses out on a lot of the recent data, and people think the recent data is exciting. A solar cycle has most of the natural variation in it, and is 11 years, but 10 is a nice round number. The current summary uses a 10 year period, that is much prefered. IMHO this is a non flawed methodology.

How about the single years in the graph in past IPCC? If say the graph had 1989-1998 averaged it certainly would have been more accurate but not as exciting. Reprints without error bars are even more exciting. A better methodology would not have lead to so many headlines about warming ending, instead of slowing. A clearer picture would have shown the proxies going to the present (cut it off early as there is a great deal of error). That average number is clearly lower than today's average, but when the politics on the other side uses the same flawed methodology as the hockey stick graph, we get a flat or even cooling temperature (-0.05 to 0.15).

Either the methodology was flawed back then, or others are right to claim that climate may be getting cooler (using that same idea that this is the new reality and natural variation is not in play).

IMHO the methodology of ignoring natural variation was flawed. There are proper weasel words in MBH, but they were not there is the 2001 summary for policy makers. If we handle data correctly then we are not missing heat, the trend line included natural variation, which needed to be averaged out. In 2001 both the tree ring data and a proper 10 year moving average would predict that temperatures in 1998 were above a properely graphed trend line.

 

I am sure that I have not seen all the studies. It is possible that mojo has not either. But the intensely interested reader would probably start at google scholar and search

medieval climate anomaly (24400 results)

just to make sure that nothing gets missed, also search

medieval warm period (118000 results)

I am sure that nothing like that number of papers has been published, so there would need to be some winnowing. Were I to undertake this, I'd probably start with Hughes and Diaz' 1994 book and commence winnowing forward from there.

All of this seems to presume that IPCC hasn't done it already, or has done it poorly. Right?

 

From the link of the summary
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

The studies show that this warming was global in nature, and proxies showing warming in this period have been found in Chile, Japan, New Zeland, Europe, but especially Greenland and north America where it may have been warmer than today. The mideval warm period also showed changes in precipitation, it was climate change not just global warming.

When averaged the current research says -

There is uncertainty from the proxies whether there was a warmer decade during the MWP, but the proxies show "likely' this is warmer than any 30 year period during the MWP. Global temperatures were likely hotter during this period than the 2001 IPCC report indicated, and the multiproxies likely show a better reconstruction of the paleo climate.

This certainly corrects some problems with the hockey stick and its statistical flattening of the MWP, and refutes the idea that the MWP was really only in the northern hemisphere, and in a few local places.

 

Yeah, that continental-scale paragraph was in my mind. The reference to 5.5 means that later, we'll see the studies referenced in AR5. The word 'tree' does not appear in SPM , so we'll have to wait to see how dendroecology divergence since 1950 gets handled. My slightly informed opinion is that it has a lot to do with +CO2

But here again, google scholar serves up >8000 results. I searched specifically on FACE experiments, that add CO2 on a local scale. If we are to delve into FACE it should be in a different thread, because we are now far afield from 50 to 1.

 

The studies stated there are consistent with what the IPCC 5 summary for policy makers stated, but the conclusions are wrong.

The summary does say some places may have been warmer during the MCA. The studies do say that this CA was really global and included changes in percipitation, disputing the Micheal Mann and real climate talking points about it being simply region heat. In other words the stuff causing the political change of name from MWP to MCA was wrong, but the IPCC does make a point that it wasn't just about warming it was also about climate change (droughts, floods, changes in percipitation) just like today's period. Note this is MBH '99 not '98 that went far enough back for the medieval warm period, and that provided the controversial graph for IPCC 3.

What the proxies also show is when taken with probable uncertainty is it is likely that although some local temperatures were higher, global temperatures were lower. Since the proxies blur heat to 30 year periods, we can't be sure that any year wasn't hotter back then, but there is confidence no 30 year period in the last 1400 years including during the MWP was warmer than today. None of what you linked contradicts that, in fact the individual research supports it.

 

I wonder why a shift from coal to gas?
I thought USA was recovering from recession?
Aren't fuel prices going up globally?

 

* * * patsparks * * *
I wonder why a shift from coal to gas? Shale is a fine-grained, hard rock with a lot of petro compounds locked inside. The process of "fracking" in effect fractures the shale 'in place' so the fossil fuels can seep out, primarily natural gas first.


I thought USA was recovering from recession? Until midnight, September 30, we were recovering but this is best discussed in a political forum. I understand you' all have a new government too.

Aren't fuel prices going up globally? Yes but locally, the USA seems to be at a plateau. However, the next 3-4 months there is a seasonal reduction in gasoline prices. The summer vacation season ends and folks spend more time at home instead of out in the cold weather.
* * * end comments * * *

Bob Wilson

 

Much coal was built during periods of strong anti-natural gas legislation that was also pro coal pollution in the US. These policies remained pro-coal in the 1990s, but became more neutral. More neutral laws encouraged a great building of natural gas infrastructure. This has taken decades. With the help of the doe, and removal of natural gas price controls, the industry heavily invested in improved drilling techniques which allowed them to tap vast reserves lowering prices. This combination of lower prices from improved fracking from gas, along with closing of old heavily polluting (SO2, NOx, particulates, and mercury) coal plants has lead the transition. Its not over though, and absent tighter regulations that are likely for coal, rising natural gas prices could reverse the trend. This shift is US centric, not global, but the fracking technology can be used globally to reduce natural gas prices.

It is, but its a slow recovery, and it is likely vmt per person is still depressed from the economy. There is good news however, as baby boomers age, they drive fewer miles. Younger drivers do not value the road trip as much as boomers, and drive less. Demographic changes should keep vmt bellow pre recession levels, even as the economy hopefully heats up.

Coal prices are going up. Oil prices appear to be slowly dropping (much higher than 2010, but lower than 2008). They should go up in the medium term (5 years) but trend may be down next year. Natural gas in the US is much lower in price than pre recession, but is higher than the bottom, due to fracking. Outside the US lng prices have risen with Japanese demand post fukishima, but the US does not have the infrastructure to export vast amounts of natural gas. Isreal has found natural gas in the sea, and may be able to greatly reduce its own natural gas prices, as well as prices for other countries in the region (Egypt, Turkey).

 

Because you have selected only the proxies that are warmer, or may be as warm as today given uncertainty about the proxies. There are also a large number of proxis that are cooler, or are cooler when others are warmer. Antartica, and Australia where colder when greenland and new zeland were warmer, at least if you believe the proxies. When you do a composite global temperature you get a warmest 30 years of the MWP was cooler was cooler than today (moderately certain (IIRC that means 90% confidence))

The IPCC V draft summary contradicts real climate on this that was trying to say that MCA was really small and regional and not global. This is because of paloclimate proxies, but if you believe these proxies the MWP was warmer than that LIA but cooler than today. IPCC V also talks about more natural variability than some of the climate blogs like real climate would have had you believe. It will be interesting on how these blogs handle the new summary. My guess they will have to agree with it, and pretend they agreed all along.

 

Thanks for the C3 link. Being offered the citation and then immediately being told exactly how to think about it is not my favorite, but it may very well work for some people.

From this, the IPCC reference and the ponderous list on google scholar I referred to, one could really get deeply into this.


About 4/5 way down the page we see "Sea levels higher during MWP" this seems interesting , because I had previously suggested that a sustained global synchronized warm period would leave a signal of increased sea level. Perhaps you remember that conversation. The good thing about sea level is that it is not a proxy, it is an integrator. This should explain my focus

There is a figure showing a total of about 0.4 meter sea level swing. Surely someone would have picked that up.

The figure refers to Aslak Grinsted, Moberg et al. 2005, Jevrejeva 2006, and a wordpress website pdf that I cannot open. My best guesses:

Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD
Aslak Grinsted, J. C. Moore, S. Jevrejeva 2008
Clim Dyn DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0507-2

Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records
S. Jevrejeva, A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate
Journal of Geophysical Research, VOL. 111, C09012, doi:10.1029/2005JC003229, 2006

I didn’t find Moberg 2005 on sea level.

The first 2 are free online so you could look too. The point is the graph is not in the papers. Nothing like the graph is in the papers. If the graph came from some other published papers. C3 is letting you down by not citing accurately. Less charitably, I really can’t tell if C3 are making it up.

You may recall that you have previously posted a graph that claimed to be from a certain published paper (Alley), and wasn't. Now you send us all to a website up to the same shenanigans. In all candor, this is not the way to make a point or convince others that you have a point.

So unless you really want to do all the compilation on all the T proxies, how 'bout this: What papers published measurements of sea level over the last 1000-2000 years? All of them. There will be many fewer than tree and speleothem proxies I am sure.

By the way, the 'orphan' graph above shows MWP sea level rise averaging 0.5 mm/yr. Currently it is 3 mm/yr. Hmmm any cause for concern there?

 

Gehrels et al 2005 popped up as actual measurement, that compares its results to two others.

Onset of recent rapid sea-level rise in the western Atlantic Ocean
W. Roland Gehrels, Jason R. Kirby, Andreas Prokoph, Rewi M. Newnham,
Eric P. Achterberg, Hywel Evans, Stuart Black, David B. Scott
Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 2083-2100
doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2004.11.016

in the attached figure, the first is their curve, compared to two earlier studies. No evidence is presented for an MWP sea-level bump. Much better explained in the paper; let me know if your librarian is 'shut down'.

Mojo, please start a thread on kiloyear sea levels wherein original research can be examined on its own merits.

 

I first went through Grinsted just in search if the orphan figure. Now, having read the entire paper I gotta tell you.

Man o man, it will be difficult to say something nice about the purveyors of C3 website. They provide links to a large number of topical publications. There, that's it.

But the way they deformed the message of Grinsted is amazing. Either they are simply dense, or they willfully drive right past reality, presuming that their readers are too dense to notice.

But read the Grinsted for yourself (it's free) and then see if I am pushing too hard.

 

Mojo's latest Grinsted link is not opening for me. I suspect that googlegroups are blocked generally here. I'm not in the US you know

Of course C3 links to a large number of paleoproxy studies. That's the good part, I already told ya. but they also tell you how to interpret the studies, and that's where it could get dicey. I saw a sea-level 'headline' and drilled into that. C3 's interpretation of the (only related) links I could find is fatuous. Now, I don't know is this is general across C3, but for me it is frankly not appealing to do more auditing. I proposed a simpler goal; what do direct studies of kilo year sea level actually show?

If somebody else here approached the Grinsted study with clear eyes, we could discuss it. I don't yet see that mojo wishes to discuss it. So we I stuck again because I don't want to interpret Grinsted for y'all. That would be like me trying to sway opinions. That role is already being fulfilled at PC.

Moberg et al. 2005 is a paleoT proxy study, used by Grinsted to drive sea-level model. Were mojo to read Moberg, I betcha he wouldn't like it. Too mainstream. MWP not big enough.