From over here. And based on a Flat Earther Piece. I asked Jerry... "What evidence would convince you that human created green house gases are causing and will continue to cause the world to heat at an increasing rate?" Jerry's response was.
Jerry's Response was: "OK. What evidence would convince me?
- IF the actual temperature records ever started to track the much higher predictions of the computerized climate models and IF those climate models were sufficiently precise (not +/- 100%)
- IF it could be proven that TOTAL CO2 was the proximate and essential cause of that warming.
then all of them together would be a basis for concern. Since NONE of those things are happening in the real world, after thirty years of doom saying and a multitude of failed predictions, count me a skeptic. Your turn."
- IF it could be shown that manmade CO2 was the principal component of the increase in CO2
Since I doubt I will ever convince a Flat Earther like Jerry, here are my simplistic views just to get them down in writing:
- Given the limited data available to the scientists in 1970, it seems their predictions are pretty good.
- I mean they had to forecast almost everything. How and where population would grow? What power sources would change? What power sources they would use?
- And just think that we had just started monitoring a bunch of the factors that are in play. I mean satellites were yet to be common. And computers were rare.
- Per the sources above, there are many factors and gases in play.
- The reason carbon dioxide is focused on is that it does not breakdown and disappear as quickly as the other gases.
- Also, it is a gas that we can control the human emission of.
- From my understanding, humans in essence are starting a chain reaction. When we started releasing all these gases into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution, we triggered a warming event.
- Unfortunately the warming and melting, just like the pumping, mining and burning are releasing carbon that had been securely on or in the ground, ice, etc.
So Jerry believes that humans releasing all of these stored chemicals into the atmosphere will have no negative consequence. He believes that plants will just absorb it all or something?
This research leaves me with one question...
This research leaves me with one question...
- If not humans, what is causing the continual rise in the levels of all of these green house gases to historic levels?
113 comments:
Well, correlation is proof of causation.
--Hiram
IF the actual temperature records ever started to track the much higher predictions of the computerized climate models and IF those climate models were sufficiently precise (not +/- 100%)
IF it could be proven that TOTAL CO2 was the proximate and essential cause of that warming.
IF it could be shown that manmade CO2 was the principal component of the increase in CO2
Notice the problem? In each case, the answer is made dependent on what can be proven, not what is true. But this gets things exactly the wrong way around. Things are provable if they are true. Provablility doesn't make things true. In different words. lots of things are true that can't be proven. Commonly, and this is the problem we face in complex scientific problems, the evidence for a proposition falls far short of a proof. That's why we correlation as causation, even though it's often inadequate.
--Hiram
Once more the rarity that Hiram is correct. However, what we can prove includes:
--Catastrophic global warming is not happening
actual trends below 2.0 degrees/century
And, your favorite "denier denier" website: notice the trends. Multiply by ten for per century
--That the climate models produce widely divergent results, completely unsuited for driving public policy CMIP models
--Apparently the models do not match reality: ibid
--We can prove that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is much shorter than assumed in the climate models. about 33 years, not 200
LOL! I just looked at your "flat Earther" piece! It is amazing bordering on hilarious how those claiming that climate skeptics are "science deniers" while their OWN DATA disproves their outrageous claims!
Jerry,
Your first link draws a line between 1900 and today. Which of course is simple denial that the rate of increase began to increase in ~1970.
I can not access the calculator at work for some reason. Here is a newer one. Though I do not have time to play with it. Direct Link
CMIP Source. CEI's Goal... And as usual with Jerry's source... expert is not a scientist but an economist
And your last link went no where usable.
So what about my questions?
Why are the green house gas levels increasing?
Or do you deny this?
Shouldn't the plants be removing it as fast as the humans pump it into the air?
Do you deny the basic science of green house gases? (ie retains more heat)
If not from humans why are these levels rising?
Simple math tells us that the excess CO2 is coming from humans, but whatever. I don't care about the jerrys of the world anymore. Time to move forward without them.
Moose
Oh, that IS interesting. It starts out saying what science has long known, that manmade CO2 is trivial compared to natural sources, but then launches into non-scientific supposition and false analogy. There is scientific proof that more CO2 creates more plant growth, which absorbs more CO2. And that natural sources increase CO2 as temperature increases caused by something else. Earth always stays "in balance" at some point. Always has.
YOur questions:
1. Natural sources, plus a wee bit of human effect.
2. No, why should I?
3. Yes, they do, scientific fact, long known.
4. No, but only that CO2 is a minor factor, and manmade CO2 even more trivial.
5. Asked and answered.
And Moose, if you want to "move forward" without considering the REAL science of Climate Change, PLEASE do so and report back. Oh, that's right, your computer will only work when the wind blows. You cannot drive to where we are because you long ago gave up your car and if you aren't local there are no planes. The good thing is that we won't have to listen to you for very long, because without meat and food transportation, you'll lose a lot of weight. Quickly. You first.
You ask for my sources, and then deny what they say. Find your own (as if Skeptical Science --my second source-- is NOT one of them). Time to prove to ME that, without looking at computerized predictions-- actual data only-- that the trendlines, even starting in 1970, say something catastrophic will occur at some point. Since I have already told you what the IPCC, EPA, NOAA, GISS, HADLEY and RSS data shows, you may be hard pressed.
And then find me a source that says the computer models are NOT widely divergent, basically +/- 100%. The average of errors is still an error.
I know that you will keep insisting that what you think is happening or ought to be happening is real. Just don't expect me to ignore reality.
Thanks for your input, such as it is.
I mean...it doesn't really matter at all. We're all just stardust. It is our alpha and omega.
It just depends how much suffering you want to inflict upon your fellow inhabitants.
Moose
"It just depends how much suffering you want to inflict upon your fellow inhabitants."
Exactly. Your proposals would cost many trillions of dollars and vastly increase human misery, with the result that the climate would be less warm by an almost insignificant amount. All pain, no gain. Why? What do you have against your fellow humans? Will you be the first to live as you demand all the rest of us do?
"Your proposals would cost many trillions of dollars and vastly increase human misery..."
What is your proof for the second part of your statement?
I mean, what if we clean up the planet and stop polluting and forcing other species into extinction for no reason?
Good god, the idiocy of deniers is enough to make you wonder if we are indeed the most intelligent species on the planet.
Moose
1 & 2: So you acknowledge that humans are making the difference between the historical balanced CO2 state and it rapidly increasing over the past century?
3: You agree that plants do clean the air, and that they are keeping up?
4. You acknowledge that a greater level of green house gases in the atmosphere will warm the planet?
5. You refuse to answer why the carbon and other green house gas levels started rapidly increasing in ~1950. (see the charts in the post)
Please also note that they said very high levels of CO2 harm plant nutrition and growth.
I have given you 2 excellent sources that detail the accuracy of the main models.
Jerry,
If I though you were concerned for the poor of the world and how they will get electricity, I may consider your view more seriously.
Unfortunately I think you are just stingy and happy to pass your costs on to our kids.
Power that is cheap today and drives the need for a lot of expensive adaptation in the future is not necessarily cheap.
1&2: no, not at all. I admit that CO2 is rising. I concede that man-made CO2 is a tiny fraction of that.
3. That is what the science says, yes.
4. I will agree that greenhouse gases keep the planet warmer than it would be without them. I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Science has proven that CO2 is in fact a minor greenhouse gas and that man-made emissions are a tiny fraction of that. Running the CMIPS models simply assuming reductions in man-made CO2 proves that, according to the models, substantial reductions in man-made CO2 have near-negligible effects on global temperatures(between 0.05 and 0.37°).
5. I frankly do not CARE. the temperature record clearly shows that whatever is causing the warming of the planet, it is not sufficiently catastrophic to be concerned about. the rise of CO2 would seem to be irrelevant.
(6.) They said that climate change (presumed caused by man-made CO2) might harm plant growth through secondary effects, like droughts or floods. But what is also overlooked is that higher CO2 concentrations make plants more efficient in their water use, so deserts are shrinking. One more free benefit.
Oh, and I did not see your source proving the "accuracy" of the models. But I also want you to find a source showing that the models have a high PRECISION. That is, do they all give the same answer?
If you are willing to be believe the big lie about man-made climate change than I am certain you can easily tell yourself the big lie about me, even though over my lifetime I have made a difference in world poverty, in several ways and places.
And I am very concerned for my kids if this crazy notion that forcing them to pay for more expensive and less reliable electricity, or even to eliminate energy use altogether, is somehow going to "save the planet." Sheer and utter folly. telling the Third World that they cannot develop their economies and improve their living conditions by using the cheap energy sources available to them is the height of arrogance and malevolence.
I think the Australians may have Discovered a fundamental truth, that there is more to be feared from climate change policy than there is from climate change itself.
1&2: Again. What is making all these gas levels increase so quickly? Can you think of something that changed in nature over the past 100 years?
3. If they are keeping up, why are the levels rising?
4. More green house gases in atmosphere = warmer planet. Right?
5. Still avoiding answering.
6. Unfortunately you apparently did not read the sources. Carbon dioxide can help plants some. Then it starts to harm them.
Accuracy is enough if you have enough models to average them. And they are getting more precise every year.
Happy I am not a poor person living near the Ocean.
So in summary... You...
- agree that green house gases are building up faster than in the past...
- agree that green house gases make the planet warmer...
- but have no answer to what is causing the historic build up...
- but you know it is not humans...
1&2 Again, natural cycles are the overwhelming influence on climate. Have been for millions of years, and puny man isn't changing it.
3. Because Nature is doing it naturally, and always has. Temperature goes up, CO2 goes up. Any 5th grader can prove it experimentally.
4. Absolutely. And by far the most important and plentiful greenhouse gas is H2O, not CO2.
5. And I'm not answering because the question is irrelevant. If increasing greenhouse gasses do not create a "dangerous" rise in temperatures, then what do I care?
6. Sure, if I pump enough CO2 into your house, you will be harmed as well. Of course, your lungs right now contain 125 TIMES the atmospheric concentration, and you're still talking.
You can average all the models you want, but that does not make any of them precise nor accurate, and you cannot have an average without sigmas. They are huge in this case, and they are NOT becoming more precise because they never adjust the fundamental "climate sensitivity" to something more reasonable, supported by recent research. If they did, they might put some skepticism into their outrageous predictions. Well known quote "we must hide our doubts."
As I said...
So in summary... You...
- agree that green house gases are building up faster than in the past...
- agree that green house gases make the planet warmer...
- but have no answer to what is causing the historic build up...
- but you know it is not humans...
We are WAY above historical normal natural variation… Something changed....
What?
The Methane Issue
A Lot of Interrelated factors
–No. there is ample evidence that this CO2 rise (despite the chart) is not historically unusual.
-- Stop saying "greenhouse gases" and then only being concerned with the almost trivial percentage that is man-made CO2. You are conflating two largely unrelated things.
–- Not true. I am telling you that the buildup is perfectly natural and has been for hundreds of thousands of years, that being that when global temperatures increase, CO2 increases hundreds of years LATER.
-- We are WAY above nothing. Again, look at temperature trends, sea level trends, severe storm trends, precipitation trends, nothing we haven't seen before. It is just that human life time is so short we tend to think in those terms.
Jerry,
- Prove it. The graph looks pretty telling.
- Humans contribute many "unnatural" things to the atmosphere through our digging up, processing and burning of fossil fuels.
- In this case the build up is occurring before the heating... It is a new twist on our worlds old history.
- When I look at the green house gas charts, they look a lot different from the historical data. Which makes sense to most folks since humans have never been there previously. Remember that we are releasing literally millions of barrels a DAY of stored chemicals
--The graph mixes ice core data and recent "proxies"; it is apples to cornflakes. And there is scientific evidence that the ice core data is off in magnitude due to chemical and physical processes naturally occurring.
--humans contribute many things to the atmosphere, but they are largely insignificant, INCLUDING CO2. And we dig up a LOT of minerals to make windmills and solar cells. It is estimated the CO2 life cycle for a windmill is net zero reduction over the equivalent fossil fuel plant. In other words, even if there IS a problem with manmade CO2 (which there is not), wind and solar are the wrong solutions.
--I suppose you can argue that if you like, except that the heating is not happening, either. CO2 continues to rise and temperatures don't keep pace. In fact, if you look at history, you will find temperatures go DOWN before CO2 stops rising. The only way to argue causation is the "greenhouse gas theory" (which is correct) that only applies to TOTAL greenhouse gasses, and then only over very long time frames. The IPCC defines "climate" as a minimum 30 year period. Take any recent 30 years and check the temperature trend. Under 0.6 degrees, right? That's what EPA, IPCC,... all show if you can find that chart.
--And Mother Nature is releasing Billions of tons per day. Get away from what you THINK is and should be happening and look at the actual temperature data. You keep looking at CO2 and believing that is the ONLY "independent variable."
- Proof? Do you have a better tool?
- "Insignificant" Prove it
- More Info on how this time is different
- You keep driving in the dark with dim head lights... :-) Don't you remember the cardinal rule of life... "Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance" Especially when you had 7+ Billion energy hungry critters to a closed system.
Maybe we should try a "bio-sphere test" where you kept burning petrochemicals in a closed dome...
Please remember that our atmosphere is pretty darn thin.
Let's do the simple math again, shall we? Greenhouse gasses are 4% of the atmosphere. CO2 is 4% of that. Manmade CO2 is 4% of that. The US produces 20% of that. Radical changes to fossil fuel use might reduce our contribution by 25% (and kill millions). So... Changing the atmosphere by .04*.04*.04*.20*.25 == 0.0000032 or 3.2 parts per million. The normal seasonal variation of CO2 is 19 ppm. It seems to me conclusive proof that manmade CO2 is pretty insignificant.
As for your "biosphere test" I should note that Al Gore and Bill Nye tried to prove that an enclosed space with higher CO2 would be radically warmer than one with normal air. It was all a fake and completely non-reproducible. And we are running the test now. Temperatures are not going up as fast as predicted with CO2 as the principal driver. Sunspots correlate better. Maybe if we had a law about them???:-^
You seem to forget the power of compounding...
1.04 to the 20th power is over 2 times...
I know... You are determined to drive forward looking backward. :-(
You seem to forget the power of compounding...
1.04 to the 20th power is over 2 times...
(ie 4% extra times 20 years)
I know... You are determined to drive forward looking backward. :-(
Jerry, Sorry I am late to the post here and have not read all of the comments. Your response to John’s question regarding what would convince you of anthropogenic climate change contains many questionable assumptions but I am not going to address those here. I do have a more specific question for you but before I ask I’m going to make several assumptions: I assume that you are not questioning the basic physics/chemistry behind how greenhouse gases trap energy, that you are not disagreeing with the data that shows humans have been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, that you are not challenging the basic calculations of the size of the planet, the amount of energy coming from the sum, the volume and type of gases in the atmosphere or the albedo of the Earth. I am also assuming you are not challenge the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Assuming you are still with me, here is my question
If the Earth is absorbing a given amount of energy from the Sun and the atmosphere of the Earth is being altered by the burning of fossil fuels changing the energy budget of the planet by trapping more infrared energy how is this energy manifesting itself and where is it?
:
LC,
My summary of Jerry's position based on his latest comments:
- CO2 levels really are not really that high compared to history because the ice CO2 data is inaccurate for some reason. I have asked for some proof.
- human CO2 creation is so small compared to natural CO2 creation that it can just be absorbed by the plants
- people will suffer and die if they do not have cheap power, so there is a trade off here that needs to be considered.
- "he" can not see any "temp rise acceleration" in the past curves, so it must not be there
Lake-- If the amount of energy coming from the sun changes, it changes the energy balance more than the tiny amount of IR absorbed by greenhouse gasses-- a very tiny amount of that due to manmade CO2.
John-1.04**20 = 2.19 to be exact. Meaning total human contribution to CO2 over 20 years is 7 parts per million, and the normal seasonal variation is still 19 ppm. And remember half of that is absorbed by plants.
--There is a physical chemistry reason why "historic CO2" may be inaccurate. From a recent paper: "This makes it very clear that the low CO2 values in the Antarctic ice cores during the Holocene could easily be the result of diffusion and do not constitute valid evidence of a stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level of ~275 ppmv." Science repeatedly discovers past concentrations above 1000 ppm, and Earth survived.
--yes, plants. I am told the Earth is greener, as measured by satellite, over an area twice the size of the US. Your "compounding" assumes Earth's natural feedback mechanisms do not work; a billion years of history says you're wrong.
People will suffer and die if they do not have /reliable/ power. Notice what happened in MN during the recent cold snap? The wind stopped and the natural gas was diverted to the backup electrical generators, so people had to set their thermostats down to 60. It was touch and go for a while. So, when the wind doesn't blow in the summer, do we turn off our refrigerators? Hospital ventilators?
--I can not see what all of YOUR official sources cannot find in the official data, but that doesn't stop them from saying crazy things about an imminent catastrophic warming. Remember we only had 10 years to save the planet? Back in 1988?
Jerry,
As I have said many times. Thank fully many of the irrational deniers like yourself are old and will not be with us in the future. :-)
The unfortunate things is that you will not have to lay in the bed you helped make. :-)
By the way, I say irrational because you make a whole lot of claims in the comment above with no back up sources...
Who do you think you are going to convince of anything with...
I heard ...
A recent paper...
I am told...
Odd. You seem to be able to find all sorts of sources that hint at what you believe to be true, but when I tell you to examine the underlying data of those exact same sources, you move on to another, equally unfounded "source." I notice that you criticize me for not posting exact sources, but you never bother to fact-check me, or you deny the sources I do contribute just because they don't agree with you.
Here is my question: What do you suppose will be the result when, after 12 years, the planet is still sailing merrily along, and the trillions of dollars we have spent have done NOTHING except to stall human progress? People are catching on, that we have far more to fear from Climate Change POLICY than we do from real Climate Change. I would like to live to see some of these doomsayers get their comeuppance.
One of dozens:
FAIL
And believe what you will, but on what basis?:
FAIL2
Link trouble: FAIL
Jerry,
The only people thinking we have more to fear from climate policy are the deniers and their populations declines every year. Actually the concern regarding man made climate change is growing worldwide.
Proving your beliefs is your job not mine. And I am not spending any more time trying open your mind... Where as I have learned a lot about the topic over the last 10 years, you are still repeating the same tired incorrect talking points. :-(
Though I have not heard this silliness in years... "Those who believe that mankind has the power to destroy what God created don't have a lot of faith in God anyway, IMHO." Jerry
Yet maybe that is at the root of your denial.
Per the first link...
"1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).”
"1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.”"
And per their graph it looks like 1990 was ~.2 C, 2020 is nearing ~.9 C... I would say the estimates were pretty good. That is in the range they predicted.
Not sure what Oppenheimer said, and I am not going to read through the details.
Apparently he thinks he was on the correct track.
As for that second fixed source...
"This is the homepage of Dr. Jay L. Wile, who holds an earned PhD in nuclear chemistry. He is best known as the author of award-winning elementary, junior and senior high school science courses including the Science through HisStory, “Discovering Design with…”, and “Exploring Creation with…” series.
Apparently he is with you in the Man can not damage God's creation boat...
And this statement seals it...
"Along with all the benefits we derive from economic use of energy, another consideration a Biblical/theological one–points in the same direction. The stewardship God gave to human beings over the earth–to cultivate and guard the garden (Genesis 2:15) and to fill, subdue, and rule the whole earth(Genesis 1:28)–strongly suggests that caring for human needs is compatible with caring for the earth. As theologian Wayne Grudem put it, “It does not seem likely to me that God would set up the world to work in such a way that human beings would eventually destroy the earth by doing such ordinary and morally good and necessary things as breathing, building a fire to cook or keep warm, burning fuel to travel, or using energy for a refrigerator to preserve food.”"
How can any human say they are science based when they believe that Humans can't screw things up???
Of course they will keep trying to make the data fit their view that God is in charge...
Here is a detailed review of the IPCC models.
How do you see it varying from your source?
"The only people thinking we have more to fear from climate policy are the deniers and their populations declines every year." Add the entire voting population of Australia. People believe in global warming, until they hear the costs of [supposedly] avoiding it.
Eyeballing a quick trendline of your OFFICIAL data, it looks like the [average of the] models predicted about .35 degrees over 30 years. That's 1.14 degrees per century, FAR under the Paris targets. NO Problem.
Reading the same chart, it looks like predictions vary +/- 75% from the average, 0r 0.5-2.0, just in the thirty years. The high end /might/ require some action, the low end requires none. So why are we certain a catastrophe is coming? One, I point out, that has already failed to arrive as predicted by the worst-case scenario?
Skeptical Science is my go-to source for the excuses people make to continue believing what they want to believe (ahem). Frequently their data says the opposite of what they say about it.
More regarding Australia
The graph you linked to showed... And the rate seems to be accelerating.
"And per their graph it looks like 1990 was ~.2 C, 2020 is nearing ~.9 C... I would say the estimates were pretty good. That is in the range they predicted."
Where are you seeing this .35 over 30 years? Or do you just make these numbers up?
Please tell me more about this? "high end /might/ require some action, the low end requires none."
Let's say that they are incorrect about how fast the disaster will occur, it will be 100 years instead of 50 years... How does that change your judgment?
Do you not care about humans more than ?? years out?
Oh, sure, attack me for "not caring." Typical liberal ad hominem. Turn it around. Do you not care about the millions who will freeze to death, starve to death, have their standard of living reduced, because we have pursued "solutions" which are costly, unreliable, and have near ZERO BENEFIT to the climate?
Somebody says "the graph looks like..." But the graph doesn't look like that. The word for that is HYPE, not math. And even .7 over 30 years is barely over 2 degrees per century.
No freezing required.
.7 C 100/30 = 2.33 C or ~4.2 F
And that assumes that our continued increased fossil fuel usage does not continue to increase the rate of increase. Here is what happens if the rate changes by only 5% per decade.
Year Chg Rate Chg Increase
1990 0
2000 0.225 1.05 0.23
2010 0.236 1.05 0.46
2020 0.248 1.05 0.71
2030 0.260 1.05 0.97
2040 0.273 1.05 1.24
2050 0.287 1.05 1.53
2060 0.302 1.05 1.83
2070 0.317 1.05 2.15
2080 0.332 1.05 2.48
2090 0.349 1.05 2.83
2100 0.367 1.05 3.20
Now tell me about this...
Please tell me more about this? "high end /might/ require some action, the low end requires none."
Let's say that they are incorrect about how fast the disaster will occur, it will be 100 years instead of 50 years... How does that change your judgment?
Mind you, it is all supposition and tea leaves that we will have a "disaster," let alone 50, 100 or 200 years from now. Let's just consult the official IPCC report:
Look at box 9.2
THEY say the trend WAS 1.1 degrees per century, but recently it has been less than half that. Will you believe the IPCC?
Jerry,
Box 9.2 on page 769 discusses short term variations vs the accuracy of the long term models. They acknowledge that for years the temp can decrease, stay static and increase while aligning with the model...
Now tell me about this...
Please tell me more about this? "high end /might/ require some action, the low end requires none."
Let's say that they are incorrect about how fast the disaster will occur, it will be 100 years instead of 50 years... How does that change your judgment?
We already have disaster because of Global Warming. No need to wait.
Moose
Where? Where?
I am wondering how good the IPCC's readings of the tea leaves, chicken bones, and hairy caterpillars are? Right now their predictions of warming include everything from about 1 degree to over 8 degrees (Centigrade, let's be consistent). That goes from far under the Paris targets to the nearly impossible "catastrophe." So, on the crazy assumption that we can choose between the two, we would do nothing at all for the lower prediction, and maybe get very excited about the higher prediction, all the while recognizing that NOBODY knows the future that well. If they did, they could make a killing in the stock market; who cares about the weather!
"...aligning with the model." Which model? Right now the only model that reasonably tracks the global temperature measured by satellite is the Russian one, which shows only the most modest warming going forward.
I am think RCP 6.0 would be realistic. It seems to be taking awhile for the deniers to pass away.... :-)
Now tell me about this...
Please tell me more about this? "high end /might/ require some action, the low end requires none."
Let's say that they are incorrect about how fast the disaster will occur, it will be 100 years instead of 50 years... How does that change your judgment?
RCP 6.5 is simply an assumption that is fed into a speculative and highly inaccurate computer simulation. It is no more likely a prediction of the future than would be a simple projection from the historical trend. The closest to actual, in fact is RCP 2.5, but that isn't scary enough to suit the alarmists, so they use 8.5 instead. What do I want to "do" if the disaster is never going to happen? Nothing. Considering the fundamental uncertainty inherent in the predictions and the tremendous cost of supposedly avoiding that possible but unlikely "disaster," what else would I do?
Let me offer one other observation. There is a widely spread deception in this argument, where "global warming" is [deliberately, IMHO] conflated with "MANMADE global warming" and that makes a HUGE difference in what "we" should do. If the warming is 96% natural, then we CANNOT do anything about it.
Yes, it is pointless having this discussion with you.
I truly hope you are correct...
No matter what the experts say...
“Where? Where?”
Everywhere. However, you need to understand how different and seemingly disparate parts of the ecosystem of the planet interrelate. I’m not surprised your view is myopic, as you show us that every day.
Moose
But the "experts" at the IPCC say "long term prediction of climate is not possible."
The experts say the trend is between 0.5 and 2.3 degrees per century. No worries.
The experts say that the temperatures predicted by the models, depending on assumptions and assuming total CO2 is the thermostat, vary between 2 degrees and 8 degrees, that is, from no problem to "we're all gonna die!"
The experts produce the data which disproves the models over the short term (30 years) and seemingly continue to do so.
The reason it is pointless having this discussion with me is because I believe the experts.
Well, even the actuaries understand the data
Not sure why you choose to be so resistant?
Is it the religious beliefs? (humans can not destroy what God has created)
I personally think humans have shown themselves quite capable at thwarting God's peaceful world.
Moose, you are going to need to be more specific. I cannot see it anywhere, nor can the scientists who are looking for it. And the big problem you are going to have is, if you DO manage to find some horrifying trend somewhere caused by global warming (It's NOT climate change, that name change was just to explain the "Gore effect") you will not be able to explain whether that trend is due to MANMADE warming or NATURAL warming.
And I do understand the complexity of the climate system. The computer models in use consider some 200 variables, only a few of which are fully understood and quantified. For example, the models do not consider the effect of /clouds/. A young man I know is going into college to help solve that problem. Beyond that it is all "fudge factors" (called "tuning," sounds better) and assumptions. Most of my career was computer modelling, I know what they mean. We had a saying in my field: "The only fool bigger than someone who never believes the computer output is the fool that always does."
John, you are fighting simple math. The models predict temperature based on (a doubling of) TOTAL CO2. When they are tasked with calculating the effects of reduced /manmade/ CO2, depending on assumptions like who reduces and by how much, they come up with numbers between 0.01 and 0.37 degrees over 100 years. Are you sure you want to argue with the very models you seem to trust for predictions of doom, and base your public policy preferences on what "science" says is pointless and futile?
I am sticking with that religious faith is your reason...
Nothing everything else is just justification.
OK, you may ADD religious faith to my reasons, but it's not relevant. Especially when nothing YOU want to believe is anything more than blind faith in something you've been told. I believe in the Holy Ghost and that Manmade Global Warming is essentially a hoax. You believe that unreliable and unfounded predictions of future weather are the Gospel, and that there is a moose in the fog... in downtown Miami.
Speaking of Miami, they seem more aware than you
"And I do understand the complexity of the climate system."
This statement simply proves that you didn't comprehend my comment that ALL of the systems on earth are connected. Good try, though. You used words.
Moose
Moose, If you want to add llama farts to the climate system, go ahead, but scientists a lot smarter than you have already added in all the variables they can think of, even though they don't understand their exact contribution. They don't include clouds, and they don't include sun activity. The very complexity you speak of makes it impossible to predict long term climate. The IPCC says so. You want to disagree with the IPCC?
Speaking of Miami, their problem is mostly land subsidence, not rising seas. And land subsidence is NOT caused by fossil fuels (nor is rising seas, for that matter).
Apparently you know better than the city officials and builders.
And the US Military?
"They don't include clouds, and they don't include sun activity."
Yes...certainly, the climate scientists have never considered the effect of the sun on our climate. LOL
That may be the most moronic thing you're written here, which is saying a lot.
Our particular thread of the conversation was about the disaster already happening in many places across the planet, however.
Moose
OK, where are these disasters, what is the nature of them, and how are they unusual in the record?.
My young friend is going to college to study how to make the models consider clouds, and the modelers admit they do NOT do that today. And they do not consider sun cycles because, as you well know (ahem) manmade CO2 is the single most important driver of warming. Until you ask the computers to predict what happens if we reduce it, and then the answer is "not so much."
And if all you are going to do is reject the truth and insult me, you can quit anytime.
John, so WHAT if the military is prepared to maintain base access if sea level rises? It doesn't prove that sea level rise is out of the ordinary, nor does it prove that it is caused by fossil fuel burning. I have long been in favor of not doing something when it is something about which we can do nothing. Especially when it is bloody expensive. The military is doing the right thing-- ADAPTING to changing local conditions (I doubt Offutt AFB is worried about sea level rise).
Jerry,
This is America... Please feel free to ignore science and continue to "believe the earth is flat".
You are correct, this is America. Who was it who said "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"?
I have given you all of the science you need to abandon your blind faith in this obvious hoax. I have shown you the simple math, the official data, the official statements from the UN, and the calculations from the climate models showing that, whatever "global warming" may or may not be taking place, reducing manmade CO2 is not going to change it, even under the most radical proposals for "renewable energy." The only thing left for me is to suggest that, if you really believe this, turn off your computer, your lights, refrigerator, furnace and A/C, and start growing all your own food. And if that magically saves the planet, I will thank you, if you're still alive.
No need to turn off anything... The wind turbines, solar cells, hydro electric, natural gas, battery systems and existing nuclear are doing an excellent job.
Thankfully even deniers get to help pay for these cleaner technologies. :-)
Well, you are obviously wrong. Wind will NEVER be reliable without some amazing battery technology that would be incredibly expensive. Wind works about 37% of the time and solar about 10% of the time, and we burn natural gas the rest of the time. That means on cold windless days there isn't enough natgas to heat homes (already happened in MN this year). Hydro is limited, nuclear is frowned upon and not counted as "green energy" and natural gas is a fossil fuel. 80% of our energy budget comes from fossil fuels. So you can run your appliances 1 day out of 5.
And you overlook the big question of WHY??? Since burning fossil fuels has a negligible effect on global warming (again, NOT "climate change"), why would we spend more and get less, just to achieve nothing of benefit? Now if these energy sources were cheaper and more reliable than what we have, we would not need all the mandates and subsidies. Why???
Since there is no convincing you...
I will just thank you for your financial support of clean energy. :-)
No convincing ME? Who keeps denying real science and insists on quasi-religious dogma?
And I am surprised that you are "donating" to a massive futility.
To me you sound a lot like a person trying to explain that Earth is flat.
Even though NASA continues to prove in many ways that it is not.
But maybe it is just one of those government conspiracies that non-believers love to preach? :-)
Ah, I see. You believe NASA-- proven hoaxers-- rather than the IPCC, NOAA, EPA, RSS, Hadley, common sense, simple math, and the Computer modelers AND their models tell you. I guess if you must believe /Something/, you should be able to choose your own source of misinformation. My daddy always used to say "there are none so blind as those who will not see."
You won't believe me until you look these things up for yourself, which you are obviously afraid to do, so let me just tell you what I see in the NASA data itself, and then you can simply deny that and accuse me of being a denier. Again. I am looking at the GISS (NASA) data set from 1880 – 2017. It shows as expected that the raw data, showing that temperatures were higher in the 1930s, has been "adjusted" and is no longer the hottest. It shows that the 1970-2010 trend of temperatures is about 1.5° per century. Even with the obvious "adjustments," NO problem.
You can eyeball trendlines from the other many charts that NASA produces and find pretty much the same thing that, depending on time period chosen, the temperature trend was and is somewhere between 1 and 2 degrees per century. Nothing SAID about this data, including its accuracy (after adjustment), can tell you that a catastrophe is coming, let ALONE that it is caused by fossil fuels. Perfectly okay for you to believe a myth, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Just don't expect me to mistake your zealotry for proof.
You are correct...
NASA must be behind the flat earth conspiracy also...
And not only NASA... But 13 government agencies are in on the CONSPIRACY...
Just look at all those shifty eyes :-)
Yes, the NCA says what they all say, that we have a terrible catastrophe coming because of fossil fuels. But they have no actual data to support those claims, any more than you do.
read between the lines of the NCA
"because of fossil fuels"
Didn't you get the memo? They are now called "freedom gas" or "molecules of freedom".
Moose
Not by True Believers like you and John.
That's because such ridiculous terms are Anti-Science, a hallmark of 'modern' Republicanism.
Moose
Exactly. And that's why they apply to you. Or you can deny it, and be a "denier."
Have you ever looked up what the computer models say about plans to reduce fossil fuel CO2? If you had, yet still insist on your view, then you have a blind faith in what some scam-artist "scientist" has told you. Citation on request.
You would have us believe that the governments of the countries of the world, along with all of the many thousands of Scientists studying climate are in on some grand conspiracy.
The answer that requires fewer assumptions (beliefs) than yours is that the Scientists are correct.
Moose
That's a very sound supposition on your part, Moose, but I'm not buying it. It used to be that a conspiracy involved two or more getting together someplace and agreeing to do something for their mutual advantage, or to the disadvantage of someone else. But with modern communications that is no longer necessary. Consider the many instances where all of the news media suddenly pick up a particular phrase to describe a certain event, like "gravitas" for Dick Cheney. It was simply a matter of everybody believing a particular thing, and choosing to talk about it in the same way as others of the "tribe." If it can happen with thousands of news reporters, why not scientists? I mean it is easy: Do you believe in climate change? Of course, climate changes all the time. Do you believe humans have an effect on the climate? Of course they do. Voila! "97% consensus!"
The other question regularly raised in law and politics is "Qui Bono." Who benefits?
Well, if government is handing out billions of dollars to study climate change or do climate modeling, or to produce "green energy," what do you think these thousands of scientists and corporate shills will say about "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming"? More than one Scientist has said something like "if I want to study the mating habits of the Arctic Larkspur, I get no money. But if I say I want to study the effect of climate change on the mating habits of the Arctic Larkspur, I get the money." Then when you read many of the scientific papers that go into the IPCC reports, you will see a lot of them with phrases like this in the summary: "we find that if the assumptions of the climate models are correct and global warming continues, …" That's not proof, that is agreeing with your benefactor's crazy idea just to get the money.
I make no assumptions at all anymore. I simply look at the data produced by the official bodies and observe that their public statements of alarm have no support within their own data. If I tell you the sky is pink, and you look up, would you choose to believe me?
I do agree that social media was a big win for the ar out conspiracy folks... No need to listen to the government agencies... They can just find similar personalities and build up any story they want. This David Middleton is who you linked to at WUWT.
Now as for the "who benefits" question? Well if Jerry and the other Deniers win...
They get to keep cheaper energy and their rates stay lower. Even though their neighbors and grand children will need to pay the extra cost.
As I keep saying. I surely hope that you and the other deniers are correct for the good of my children and all the needy people of the world. If not we will have contributed to the displacement and/or death of billions...
Your source is no better, and probably worse.
Look at all the propaganda/lies in the first paragraph:
"After global heat records were continually broken over the last decade, and as sea levels rose and scientists reported the accelerated melting of polar ice sheets, you might be forgiven for thinking the debate over climate change had shifted."
That the debate did NOT shift was because of the entrenched narrative (aka Big Lie). Look at the DATA!
Are you denying that these signs occurred?
-global heat records were continually broken over the last decade
- sea levels rose
- accelerated melting of polar ice sheets,
I don't know anything about "my source" except that they fact checked your source and provided a lot of data to explain how David Middleton has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts.
Nope, not denying, simply pointing out the propaganda.
Global heat records were broken, but not continually, and not by very much. That is, the historic trend did not change and in fact was somewhat lower than the 1980-1998 trend.
Sea levels rose, but consistent with the 100-year trend, which is not very much.
polar ice sheets (Arctic) melted, and then re-froze, similar to historic patterns.
And Antarctic ice is growing.
You see, that is what these alarmists do. They tell you something and then let you assume that it is concerning, when their own data simply say there is nothing particularly out of the ordinary going on here. They then turn around and, once they have you bamboozled into believing in Catastrophic Global Warming, they pull the bait-and-switch and tell you that it is MANMADE CGW, with no credible scientific data to support the claim. But repeat the claims long enough, often enough and loud enough to threaten the "skeptics," the people believe, and the dollars keep flowing.
SO... when "your source" tells me these lies and claims to be "fact-checking" "my source" can I simply dismiss your argument as you do mine, even though the very same data proves what I say?
"Global heat records were broken, but not continually, and not by very much."
I'll remind you that you are arguing against the following:
"After global heat records were continually broken over the last decade..."
8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2009. I don't know what definition of continually you are using, but it's not accurate.
Moose
"And Antarctic ice is growing."
This is denialist propaganda. What you meant to say is "sea ice". Funny how you left out important information to serve your own purpose.
The Antarctic Ice Sheet continues to shed mass in unprecedented fashion. I'm sure you just overlooked that fact in your rush to propagandize.
Moose
NG Ice Out
"NASA: Antarctic Ice Sheet Is GROWING, Not Shrinking. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) published a new study showing that Antarctica’s ice sheet has been thickening for at least a thousand years from extra snowfall, and the south pole actually increased in mass from 1992 to 2008."
Dang! Now NASA is in on the denialist conspiracy!
“Ah, I see. You believe NASA-- proven hoaxers--“
Moose
Jerry,
Is this what you are trying to quote or should I say misquote?
"A new NASA-led study has determined that an increase in snowfall accumulation over Antarctica during the 20th century mitigated sea level rise by 0.4 inches. However, Antarctica’s additional ice mass gained from snowfall makes up for just about a third of its current ice loss.
“Our findings don’t mean that Antarctica is growing; it’s still losing mass, even with the extra snowfall,” said Brooke Medley, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published in Nature Climate Change on Dec. 10. “What it means, however, is that without these gains, we would have experienced even more sea level rise in the 20th century.”"
And lest we forget, more snowfall and melting ice are BOTH signs of a warmer climate.
Moose
Correct, but it is incorrect to say the polar ice caps are shrinking. Direct NASA quote, by the way.
I wonder what they mean by “it’s still losing mass”.
Moose
Jerry,
Taking one sentence out of a whole paper is a sure sign of "cherry picking" and a weak argument.
These are the typical practices of conspiracy theorists. Because the whole truth typically is hard for them to face.
Kind of like the flat earth folks who would not go further from shore...
What is the difference between "cherry picking" and grossly misrepresenting the facts in a long, wordy essay? I will say it once again: look at the data! Not projections, not "sky is falling" unsubstantiated statements, not twisting the data to suit the narrative.
We see those graphs very differntally.
Ah. Now if we could just agree on which graph we see differently, we could debate the merits, authenticity and proper interpretation. That would be progress.
Well, since this troll has re-opened the topic, let's take another view of this "problem." I contend it is not a problem at all, and that all the real data I can see tells me the "catastrophe" simply isn't going to happen, and that if it does it will not be "manmade" and therefore it is nothing we can actually "do something" about. Even the IPCC has lowered its average "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity" to something almost NON-catastrophic (yet still too high by all research).
But let us assume for the moment that your blind faith belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is somehow real, and that we MUST "do something." Good news, we are actually doing it! Bad news, it not only hasn't made a dime's worth of difference except that it costs more and results in the occasional brownout or worse. But let's overlook that, too, and rush headlong into the bright future of 100% "renewable energy" now being mandated by our governments. Can I assume that they will also mandate that the Earth somehow produce somewhere between 200% and 1700% of the known reserves of the minerals required? If they can do that, then why not simply mandate that the seas and temperatures cease to rise?
Continued Here
Post a Comment