Jerry says "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."
So here are some official graphs. I added 2 lines to the first one. And the third is the official forecasts. Unfortunately we are heading for somewhere between RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5 since the worlds populations are not changing too much. (ie more people and more emissions)
I can't wait to see where this goes. :-) Pick image to zoom.
So here are some official graphs. I added 2 lines to the first one. And the third is the official forecasts. Unfortunately we are heading for somewhere between RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5 since the worlds populations are not changing too much. (ie more people and more emissions)
I can't wait to see where this goes. :-) Pick image to zoom.
61 comments:
Now we are getting somewhere.
First graph: Your hyperbolic fit makes no sense. It makes more sense to say we had warming from 1900 to about 1940-- -0.7 to -0.3 in 40 years or 1 degree/century, then cooling until about 1975-- -0.3 to -0.6 over 30 years, or -1 degree per century, and then increased warming from 1980--2020 -0.5 to + 0.3 over 40 years, or 2.0 degrees per century, the arbitrary Paris target.
Second graph: Same thing. From 1970-2019, 50 years, temperature anomalies seem to have risen from zero to about 0.6 degrees, or 1.2 degrees per century.
3rd graph: same thing. Just drawing a trendline from the start to the finish shows about 0.5 degrees over the observed 50 years, or 1.0 degrees per century.
3rd Graph, conclusion: The computer models make predictions that range over such wide limits, depending on assumptions, that they are worthless for prescribing public policy, especially when historical data says it isn't happening.
Actually the RCP scenarios seem pretty clear to me.
RCP8.5: We ignore the science of green house gases, continue growing our population and continue pumping out ever more emissions. (ie the Jerry scenario)
RCP2.6: We make some major changes to reduce emissions.
And those some where in between...
Okay Jerry, I replaced image 1 and put your line on it...
What is your rationale for the lines slope?
Does the slope stay constant? Rationale?
How much rise is too much? Rationale?
My rational for the line's slope is "a trend will continue until it changes." It is as valid a scientific method of prediction as those cockamamie climate models with their hundreds of assumptions.
But I think you will find there is a better fit to that curve, and that is a Fourier series of known natural cycles, the most prominent being a 30-year cycle and fairly obvious just looking at the data. Superimposed on that but not obvious is the 400-year and 1000-year cycle, causing the whole "cosine wave" to gradually shift upward, NATURALLY.
How much rise is too much? The Paris agreement sets a very arbitrary target of 2 degrees, below (or even above) which many scientists agree temp rise is beneficial. But here is the real kicker: What if there is nothing we can do to stop the temperature rise, because it is 99% natural? Then "too much" doesn't enter into the equation at all, does it? Like the old CCR song, "who'll stop the rain."
But something has changed as noted in the graphs on this post.
Or the graphs in this one
And yet you still deny that there are consequences to these changes. With pretty much no rationale or science.
Oh well, I hope your faith is correct.
Those graphs tell you what you THINK should be happening. Please concentrate on these graphs, which show what is ACTUALLY happening. Regardless of cause, temperatures are not going up at an alarming rate.
And it is not me denying that such changes are harmful, but rather the IPCC and the Paris Climate Accords saying they are benign. I need no faith to read a chart. You need faith to believe what you see, rather than your pre-conceived predjudices, fed by dogma from the Church of Global Warming.
You keep forgetting that I am skeptical of both extremes in this case, as in many...
But even I can understand that actions have consequences...
And reducing manmade CO2 will have an effect on the climate, according to the climate models, IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THEM. But that effect is near-negligible. Cutting US CO2 by 30% gives a reduction in the temperature 100 years from now of 0.01 Degrees. Basically immeasurably small. Unfortunately, cutting CO2 that drastically that soon will result in millions of people dying and many more missing a LOT of economic opportunity. It is "all pain, no gain."
You are correct. The US will have a nominal impact since we only have ~4% of the world's population. However we can help lead the way.
Source? "CO2 that drastically that soon will result in millions of people dying and many more missing a LOT of economic opportunity"
Here is a discussion of how CC may kill millions of people
My sources: various. But spending trillions of dollars on windmills will doubtless decrease investment needed for other things that are worthwhile while doing nothing meaningful for the climate. Depriving people of energy results in death from cold, lack of food for failed refrigeration or lack of transportation, lack of health care as hospitals cannot operate, etc. Even if nobody dies directly, it is still a total waste of money.
And do you really think the Chinese, Indians, or anybody else gives a whit for our "leadership"? The Chinese have already said they will continue growing CO2 emissions.
Now, if we discover some great energy source with no CO2 and lower cost, we could export that to the world and they would happily buy it, just as we would domestically. But selling them something just because it doesn't emit CO2 but costs more? Laughable.
You are demanding we implement a non-solution to a non-problem.
You either lead or follow... Unfortunately folks like you seem to want to follow the dog ahead of you...
QN China's Investment
Greening of India and China
Power and trees from a desert
Trump denies Climate Change and
Russia is preparing for benefitting from it
Before I trouble reading your cites, what are you trying to prove? You are promoting a non-solution to a non-problem. What possible "point" could you make that would change that assessment?
What you believe to be "a non-problem"...
Thankfully you are now in the minority...
I have proven to you six ways from Sunday that it IS a non-problem. There are only two things keeping you from believing the obvious: Those silly climate models that I have proven are worthless at predicting future climate, and your blind faith in those predictions. Look at the data!
Didn't your mama ever ask you "if everybody else decided to jump off a bridge, would you?" And I am of the minority opinion, yes, but when people find out the cost to themselves of that belief, they switch sides pretty quickly. I've TOLD you the cost-benefit-- all pain, no gain-- yet you keep buying that same old snake oil.
You've changed the subject. Lots of people used to believe tomatoes were poisonous. How can you PROVE what the global temperature will be 100 years from now?
Unfortunately you have proven nothing to me or the others... Except possibly that you are determined to stick with your initial position no matter what new data appears...
I am okay with that...
You do not seem to realize that I have only recently discovered the fact that the official data says there is no catastrophic warming coming, and adjusted my thinking accordingly! I used to believe that simple math, my extensive knowledge of computer modelling and the flaws in the climate models, plus the vast array of failed predictions from the alarmists, constituted sufficient proof for anybody (except you). But now that I know that the data from the alarmists themselves does not support their assertions, I don't have to prove anything. I just point to the data and tell people they can believe what they want, but they are factually and scientifically in error.
Look, I'll change my mind again if you can prove to me that, contrary to all the official data, there IS catastrophic warming coming. I don't know how you do that, but that's your problem. I mean, I can show it to you, but I can't SEE it for you.
From that other post...
"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?"
And you are absolutely correct. You do not have to prove anything...
Let us say that their data is correct and the models are not. Although seeing as how the models predict something between 2 degrees and 8 degrees, it is hard for them NOT to have "guessed" the right value somewhere in that 4:1 band, especially with confidence bars attached. If their data is correct (and everybody keeping the official data agrees pretty much on it), the disaster will NOT occur within the next 100 years. If by some miracle the models are right, then our reaction must be to keep under 2 degrees (if you buy the Paris targets) and the low side of the models say we are already there, regardless of the assumptions required. Interestingly, the same answer you get by extrapolating trends of the actual data-- the "do nothing" scenario.
Some people have said that the high side of the predictions are actually highly unlikely, requiring us to dig up and burn all the coal on earth (the US has 600 years of it at current rates). Somewhere in the middle, again ASSUMING that manmade CO2 is the principal driver of global temperatures (which it cannot possibly be), tells us we should do something about fossil fuels, but those very same models also tell us it really won't matter!
In short, the best data we have says this is a non-problem, and we are unable to predict whether it will ever become a problem. And the very same models that hint that there might be a problem, as inaccurate as they are, tell us that we are pursuing a highly expensive non-solution.
I do not have to prove anything, but if this "case" were in a court of law, the alarmist proposition would be dismissed for lack of evidence. In fact, a few court rulings have, somewhat surprisingly, already so decided.
Actually in a court of law the expert witnesses would each your "I don't think so" butt... :-)
That is why most people are starting to understand that it is real.
Now again...
"the disaster will NOT occur"
What disaster?
Source?
Please remember that per the forecasts we will exceed 2 degree C before 2100...
And there is no sign of the heating coming to an end anytime soon...
Is this "disaster"? Or not?
The forecasts are worthless. They have no validity. They're bogus. They're a hoax. Don't believe them. OK, that's harsh. They are so riddled by assumptions that it is impossible for them to predict with any accuracy the future state of the climate, EXACTLY as stated by the IPCC.
Actually, the heating has already come to an end, more or less. Simply look at the trend lines of the temperature data. While a minimum of 30 years is required to establish a temperature trend (corresponding to one of the natural cycles, BTW), the 21st century trend is LOWER than the 1980-2000 trend. You are correct, however, there is "no sign" that the increased heating will come to an end, but there is NO SIGN it will continue, either!
And any "NCA" which says otherwise is just making up crap to keep the money flowing and the population alarmed. The only disaster here is the oodles of taxpayer money being spent perpetuating this myth and government-mandated phony-baloney solutions.
You really are determined to be correct even when all the science is against you.
Are we back to assuming this a:
- faith issue
- inflexibility issue
In 5 years when it is hotter yet...
Will you finally be able to accept your incorrect belief?
Other than your living until 2080...
What would ever convince you?
I am determined to be correct because all the science agrees with me, even though politicians and rent-seekers continue to deceive the public about the real science for their own fun and profit. To them I say, "you first." Set that example you want to force all of the rest of us to set, for the rest of the world. Let's see how that goes.
What would convince me would be living to 2080 and getting an accurate measure of the manmade CO2 content of the atmosphere, and of the "global" temperature, and some real proof that the two are causally related. The PROOF of any hypothesis is to do the experiment and see if the predicted results match the actual. The hypothesis (aka SWAG) is that temperatures will be 2-8 degrees hotter by 2100. We will not know how that turns out for another 80 years. Until then it's a SWAG. Why are YOU convinced? What would it take to convince you that you've been flim-flammed?
Oh, and as for "hotter yet," the critical question would be how much? At 1.2 degrees per century, we might expect 2024 temperatures to be .06 degrees C warmer. We cannot measure better than +/- 0.2. And if that is all the warmer it gets, then in 100 years we do NOT have a disaster. And all of the official trendlines say that is exactly what will happen-- 1-2 degrees of warming. Why are you so worried about some phantasm created by diabolical doomsayers?
Actually the new sensors, models and big computers are working quite well
Why do am I worried? Well that is easy...
- I love my children and want them to enjoy MN just as it was / is...
- I don't want a billion plus people to have to migrate from their homes...
- I don't want millions of people to die in wars, famines...
- etc
Saving a few dollars on my energy bills sure is not worth the risk.
Why are you worried? There is no scientifically credible evidence that the climate is changing in any unprecedented or "catastrophic" manner, and if it were, there is NOTHING you can do about it! See "the serenity prayer."
I don't think your cite on accuracy says what you say it does.
Saving a few dollars? How about $100/month?
$100 / mth sounds like a lot given that I have seen no where near that increase so far...
And given the alternatives it sounds like some pretty cheap insurance.
I am probably paying as much additional in my home owners insurance due to the historic flooding, hurricanes, fires, etc...
WHAT historic flooding, hurricanes, fires, etc.? All of these things are within historic norms, and arguing they were caused by the 1 degree rise of the last century, well, let's say it is dubious.
You want insurance, how about something that has a real chance of happening? Like the wind not blowing so everything in your fridge spoils? Look at the price of renewable energy. And look, exactly $100/month. (Look at the data.)
electric bills
As for your not being able to see the historic flooding, hurricanes, fires, etc.? Maybe you are blinded by your bias.
$80/mth to $103/mth is not a $100/mth increase.
And yes building new power generation systems does cost money, though as the coal bills disappear this should level out.
Some more unfortunate record breaking
Ah, well, I guess any source in a storm, right? Not quite apropos, but “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”. ― Carl Sandburg.
Or just throw in a lot of extraneous information and try to obfuscate everything.
You keep trying to find reasons to accept the climate models as they are, yet as they are they are simply too inaccurate to mean anything. If I told you your new car was capable of traveling, at top speed, between 10 and 100 miles per hour, would you believe it? Maybe, but would you BUY it?
Both of those sources are pretty factual, as is the one regarding increasing insurance premiums. My dog heads his head under a desk when it thunders and lightnings. I am experiencing great joy envisioning you doing similar with regarding to the real consequences of warming oceans... :-)
Actually the models have a pretty narrow window given all the factors in play and the long time frame. RCP 6.0 says that if we for the most part continue as we are... The temp gain will be between 1.5 C and 3.0 C...
Both of which will be problematic for a large part of the human population who do not live in MN... Speaking of MN
And for the details
Again, you are believing the models are correct, and the only way that can happen is if the underlying math is correct in its assumption that manmade CO2 is the principal driver of climate (which it cannot possibly be), and IF every single assumption in that particular model scenario (over 200 of them) are all exactly correct. Of course, predicting the future behavior of 200 different variables might be incredibly difficult, leading to a tremendous possibility of error. But, to quote the great philosopher, "a lie is as good as the truth if you can get somebody to believe it." The models show what they need to show to keep the dollars flowing, nothing more.
But, let's take your accepted premise of 1.5 to 3 degrees rise over 100 years. The last century saw a rise of roughly 1.3? degrees of rise, and we are all much better off for it. 1.5 is the lower bound of the Paris agreement and everything is supposed to be copacetic if we achieve that. 2.0 degrees is the upper bound, and most scientists agree that much (and a bit more) is also beneficial. SO... if it goes up 1/2 degree more beyond "beneficial" it turns into catastrophe? And we are worried about that even though there is nothing we can do to prevent it? Ignore the scaremongers, and go out and enjoy the nice weather.
Now talking about opinions... Oh my...
"we are all much better off for it"
"most scientists agree that much (and a bit more) is also beneficial"
Let's see, average life expectancy 1900 vs 2000? number of homes with refrigeration, air condition, ability to travel by air or by car, average home size, calorie intake, average height, leisure hours.... ...
OK, look it up. Not my opinion, but learned scientists from all over.
just one
You have got to be kidding... A Heartland Document?
More on Heartland
Moron Heartland... :-)
Jerry,
The benefits you note do not support this...
"The last century saw a rise of roughly 1.3? degrees of rise, and we are all much better off for it."
And worse yet for your argument... They indicate that you truly believe that man's use of fossil fuels has caused climate change...
It sounds like you are affirming that the 1.3 degrees rise is due to human power generation...
Thank you !!!
Now back to all those human benefits...
"average life expectancy 1900 vs 2000? number of homes with refrigeration, air condition, ability to travel by air or by car, average home size, calorie intake, average height, leisure hours.."
Most of them have to do with technology, medications, farm modernization, etc...
And yes fossil fuels did help enable these improvements, which is good. But it also caused the unnatural warming of our planet which is bad. The good news though is that now we have new technologies that enable us to keep the benefits without incurring the long term costs. :-)
OK, from now on I will simply dismiss any source you post. Truth ought to be where you find it. If temperatures have already gone up 1 degree in 100 years, and we're all still here and thriving. If temps go up 2 degrees in the next 100 years, is it really a catastrophe? Where is your credible scientific proof that such will occur?
I will admit that our standard of living has risen dramatically as a result of fossil fuels. That this has caused warming is entirely your imagination. Well, OK, a widely shared delusion.
Again... Thank you...
Jerry's first claim...
"The last century saw a rise of roughly 1.3? degrees of rise, and we are all much better off for it. 1.5 is the lower bound of the Paris agreement and everything is supposed to be copacetic if we achieve that. 2.0 degrees is the upper bound, and most scientists agree that much (and a bit more) is also beneficial. "
Jerry's supporting comment...
"Let's see, average life expectancy 1900 vs 2000? number of homes with refrigeration, air condition, ability to travel by air or by car, average home size, calorie intake, average height, leisure hours..."
And I am not sure where you got the idea that 2 deg C is no problem...
Jerry,
By the way... You already do that...
"I will simply dismiss any source you post"
I believe I find most of your cites irrelevant, or easily refuted. Hardly the same thing as dismissing them. You keep denying the science in favor of Warmist cant. I will ask one more time: where is your scientifically credible evidence that the world will be catastrophically warmer in 2100? Oh, and if so, that we can do anything about it?
It is too nice out to spend me time on this useless discussion...
And I am certain we can do something about it because Jerry says so...
"Let's see, average life expectancy 1900 vs 2000? number of homes with refrigeration, air condition, ability to travel by air or by car, average home size, calorie intake, average height, leisure hours..."
The question is which trade offs are we willing to make...
I've been outside all day clearing brush. I feel like G.W. Bush. But what trade-offs? Do we want to go back to the standard of living of 1900 by doing without fossil fuels? Because renewables are never going to be the right answer, and because fossil fuels aren't the problem in the first place. You HAVE NO EVIDENCE-- credible scientific evidence-- for saying the temperature 50 or 100 years from now will be "catastrophic." None.
How about we just listen to the experts? "In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
-- 14,2,2,2 of AR3 of the IPCC
And on review, I find this humorous: "The temp gain will be between 1.5 C and 3.0 C...
Both of which will be problematic for a large part of the human population who do not live in MN."
And yet the wizards of Paris say anything less than 2.0 will be just fine. They believe we need extraordinary measures to reach that, but their very own models AND their official data both say "business as usual" will get us there just as well.
Who said this?
"wizards of Paris say anything less than 2.0 will be just fine"
This statement from them looks quite different...
I am thinking you have been listening to Trump too much...
Just spouting out whatever you feel even if it is easily fact check to be found false.
"But the agreement's more ambitious goal was to prevent temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees C. That's because even 1.5 degrees of warming will cause catastrophic effects, including more intense storms, searing heat waves, mass extinctions, and droughts. If we hit 2 degrees of warming, the effects will be even worse.
According to the new report, we're already close to blowing past those thresholds, into temperature zones that will have devastating consequences. We're expected to hit that 1.5-degree mark around 2040. By 2100, we're on track to see more than 3 C above pre-industrial levels."
Some potential mortality analysis
I'm sorry, I simply assumed that the Paris politicians we being rational, based on your "moose in the fog" belief. But you are correct, they are not being rational. When the number of hot days has been declining for years, these rascals want to reduce our ability to run our air conditioners to avoid heat-related deaths. Just look at your last citation, here: "The nationally determined contributions (NDCs) submitted ... under the Paris Agreement have been estimated to be consistent with emission pathways reaching a median global mean temperature increase of 2.6° to 3.1°C above preindustrial levels by 2100."
OK, so this whole thing is predicated on the models being correct. They are not, they cannot be, and all of the predictions arising from them are being proven false every day. If there IS warming, as I've shown you time and again, it is likely to be 98% natural, and no "emissions target" is going to change that.
Besides, humans survive in average annual temperatures from -12 to 34 degrees C. Where is 2 more going to be fatal?
Of course they were being rational, they tried to set a goal that was attainable... Not one that would eliminate the suffering.
To me it looks like Mr Hansen's predictions were pretty great so far.
OK, look at the data! Drawing a pessimistic line through both the actual data (using the misleading GISS data set) we see a temperature rise of 0.9° over 60 years, or 1.5° per century. Hansen's scenario C says we will have 1.3° rise per century. Once more, real data matches the lower bounds of the predictions – not the average and certainly not the extreme high – and both are lower than the lower bound of the Paris agreement. And this was accomplished WITHOUT any of the extraordinary measures assumed by Hansen or the other climate models. Let me be blunt: any action taken to curb man-made CO2, simply for climate sake, is irrelevant and worthless.
I don't need to draw lines. They already have
And by the way, it unfortunately is not a straight line. :-(
I see the "Differences from the Averages" graphic most telling...
I see the first one-- projections vs reality, the most telling, and it IS necessary to draw your own lines, estimating the trend, because what you have is a biased source using biased data (GISS) and STILL, as I eyeball it, real temperatures are trending from -0.1 to +0.7 in the 60 years from 1960 to 2020. That's 100/60*0.8= 1.3 degrees per century, exactly what I keep telling you that every other dataset confirms.
When will you accept the actual, measured, scientific data your own "side" is telling you?
By the way, the "differences from averages" graph tells us that temps have gone from about zero to about 1.2 degrees in 140 years. That is LESS than 1 degree per century. If you want to say global warming started in 1950, it looks like temps have gone from +0.2 to (maybe as high as) +1.2 over the 70 years, or 1.4 degrees per century. Remarkable agreement, would you agree?
Post a Comment