Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures.

[Threegoofs]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Well the 200,000 people per year dying as a result of using food for fuel is Mithrae's prefered figure and the 20 million is my lowest estimate of how many people live on less than $1.25 a day and doing some very simple maths. How many extra deaths do you think are happening due to the 40% to 70% increase in basic food prices as a result of all this global warming hype? [1]

Zero.

So you'll need to adjust your number. And you might want to qualify that your goofy estimate was blown out of the water by Mithrae at least once.

Ethanol isn't changing prices much- it's primarily corn in the US, and sugar cane in Brazil (I guess you're wailing about the starving South Americans who can't get enough sugar?), and starvation is due to food distribution, not prices or supply.

In the US, and probably in Europe, we actually pay farmers NOT to grow corn to prop up prices. Seems like you should be up in arms about that, instead!

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Zero.

So you'll need to adjust your number. And you might want to qualify that your goofy estimate was blown out of the water by Mithrae at least once.

Ethanol isn't changing prices much- it's primarily corn in the US, and sugar cane in Brazil (I guess you're wailing about the starving South Americans who can't get enough sugar?), and starvation is due to food distribution, not prices or supply.

In the US, and probably in Europe, we actually pay farmers NOT to grow corn to prop up prices. Seems like you should be up in arms about that, instead!

[h=3]It's Time to Rethink America's Corn System - Scientific American[/h]www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/

Scientific American


Mar 5, 2013 - What this all means is that little of the corn crop actually ends up ... America'sagriculture, with impacts ranging from food prices to feed prices and energy prices. ... And we should look to support farmers for important things that ...

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Zero.

So you'll need to adjust your number. And you might want to qualify that your goofy estimate was blown out of the water by Mithrae at least once.

Ethanol isn't changing prices much- it's primarily corn in the US, and sugar cane in Brazil (I guess you're wailing about the starving South Americans who can't get enough sugar?), and starvation is due to food distribution, not prices or supply.

In the US, and probably in Europe, we actually pay farmers NOT to grow corn to prop up prices. Seems like you should be up in arms about that, instead!

Biofuels and World Hunger

Biofuels are conservatively estimated to have been responsible for at least 30 percent of the global food price spike in 2008 that pushed 100 million people into poverty and drove some 30 million more into hunger, according to the report, Meals per gallon, released by the UK charity ActionAid in February 2010 [1]. The number of chronically hungry people now exceeds one billion.

As I say there are various estimates but the lowest is 200k/year. That's dead people.

Yes. Proping up food prices in any way is deadful. It is always a crime against the poor or the world.

Making food more expensive anywhere in the freely trading world will make the poorest starve. Very basic stuff.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Biofuels and World Hunger



As I say there are various estimates but the lowest is 200k/year. That's dead people.

Yes. Proping up food prices in any way is deadful. It is always a crime against the poor or the world.

Making food more expensive anywhere in the freely trading world will make the poorest starve. Very basic stuff.

No. I just gave you an estimate of zero, which is just as, if not more, based upon reason than your estimate of 2 eleventyjazillion.

So the correct estimate is zero to 2eleventyjazillion.

With the more likely number being zero.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

How many people shoule we starve to death in order to make sure we are doing something to ward off this problem that so far is not even showing signs of being as much as the lowest projections of AGW?

Currently the figure is between 200,000 people per year and 20 million. How many would you think is acceptable?

Starve to death ?

If the unscientific climate deniers are wrong, that's more than 7 billion dead.

People starve to death whether we ignore climate change or not. If you're worried about world hunger, then you're fighting the wrong battle to fight against carbon dioxide caution; lol !!

 

[longview]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

I agree but I was referring to your 0.3 to 3.3 C comment.

Well... 1.5 -1.2 = .3, and 4.5 -1.2= 3.3,
Since it is described as an amplified feedback, the increase from the input signal (warming),
is between +.3 and +3.3 C.

 

[Tpaine]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Well... 1.5 -1.2 = .3, and 4.5 -1.2= 3.3,
Since it is described as an amplified feedback, the increase from the input signal (warming),
is between +.3 and +3.3 C.

That's not correct. The 1.2 is the base number that can be calculated for the temperature rise for CO2 alone. There are additional positive feedback's that increase that base number. You don't subtract the 1.2 from the 1.5. There are an additional .3 to 3.3 degrees due to positive feedback. Only if the total feedback was negative would you start subtracting from the base number.

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Climate Models Provide No Rational Basis for Predicting Future Global Average Temperature

An interesting take on modeling.

When a non-climatologist starts by willfully misrepresenting the IPCC's message as "if you don't repent you're all going to die", it's not worth my time to continue. Clearly he hasn't even read the IPCC report, so he does not have the standing to criticize it.

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

For those who don't know: Science goes back to the drawing board when a model fails to predict the future situation accurately.

Totally incorrect. Science doesn't go "back to the drawing board" unless a better model comes along. We're still waiting for yours. Ooops, don't have one? Looks like the consensus wins again.

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

That BS again.

What happens if we never started clearing the skies since the 70's?

Any scientist would agree this was due, and predictable, because of our actions concerning aerosols. That is if they studied the facts known then.

What a stupid example.

Global sulfate aerosol are currently at about the same level as they were in the mid 1960s. So why are temperatures so much warmer now than they were then?

So, borrowing your own preferring mode of insult: What a stupid hypothesis.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Global sulfate aerosol are currently at about the same level as they were in the mid 1960s.

Link?

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Link?

Global Sulfur Emissions Database

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Starve to death ?

If the unscientific climate deniers are wrong, that's more than 7 billion dead.

People starve to death whether we ignore climate change or not. If you're worried about world hunger, then you're fighting the wrong battle to fight against carbon dioxide caution; lol !!

You have no idea what you are talking about, clearly.

The worste case scenarios from the IPCC and any real science show at most a 3.8c warming from now, or there abouts, by 2100. There is no science that supports the idea that all of humanity is at risk of death due to this at any time in the future.

Millions are starving now. Billions are pushed down into poverty dus to the manipulation of the food prices by the use of food as fuel. How much evil do you think is acceptable to avoid a fantasy problem in this real world?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Totally incorrect. Science doesn't go "back to the drawing board" unless a better model comes along. We're still waiting for yours. Ooops, don't have one? Looks like the consensus wins again.

Wrong. Utterly wrong.

The default answer in science is "I don't know".

Using an answer/model that you know is wrong is religion not science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

When a non-climatologist starts by willfully misrepresenting the IPCC's message as "if you don't repent you're all going to die", it's not worth my time to continue. Clearly he hasn't even read the IPCC report, so he does not have the standing to criticize it.

When the IPCC misrepresents the science, why should we give them respect?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Global sulfate aerosol are currently at about the same level as they were in the mid 1960s. So why are temperatures so much warmer now than they were then?

So, borrowing your own preferring mode of insult: What a stupid hypothesis.

LOL...

Talking out your ass again, right?

No link?

Now I would suspect that sulfates are actually a bit higher than the 60, but where they are produced makes a difference too. It matters how the winds carry them, and where they are blocking the sun. A 5% reduction in an area that gets little sun is not as pronounces as a 5% reduction of strong sun. Also, if the winds carry the aerosols over water, land, or ice. Think about the areas of the past production vs. today. Large amounts of aerosols and the regions of concentration are different today.

Your thinking is too simplistic.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

When a non-climatologist starts by willfully misrepresenting the IPCC's message as "if you don't repent you're all going to die", it's not worth my time to continue. Clearly he hasn't even read the IPCC report, so he does not have the standing to criticize it.

Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
Starve to death ?

If the unscientific climate deniers are wrong, that's more than 7 billion dead.

People starve to death whether we ignore climate change or not. If you're worried about world hunger, then you're fighting the wrong battle to fight against carbon dioxide caution; lol !!

It is the alarmist crowd who like to spread lies.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Global Sulfur Emissions Database

LOL...

Newest data 26 years old.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

 

[longview]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

That's not correct. The 1.2 is the base number that can be calculated for the temperature rise for CO2 alone. There are additional positive feedback's that increase that base number. You don't subtract the 1.2 from the 1.5. There are an additional .3 to 3.3 degrees due to positive feedback. Only if the total feedback was negative would you start subtracting from the base number.

The 1.2 C is the likely physics based warming that will occur if the level of CO2 is doubled.
The additional warming is from predicted amplified feedback of the direct response warming.
To get to a total ECS of 1.5 to 4.5 C, you need to add between .3 and 3.3 C to the direct response warming.
The direct response warming from doubling CO2 is not in question, It is the additional amplified response
the has people skeptical.

 

[longview]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

When a non-climatologist starts by willfully misrepresenting the IPCC's message as "if you don't repent you're all going to die", it's not worth my time to continue. Clearly he hasn't even read the IPCC report, so he does not have the standing to criticize it.

Most people who do Scientific research for a living and publish often, understand proper error analysis.
Error analysis of your own work is not easy, because as Feynman said,
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
If the uncertainty is accumulated per temporal step, it can grow large quickly.
We know from the IPCC themselves that their uncertainty is likely greater then their prediction.
If the prediction is 1.5 to 4.5 C, and the uncertainty is 3 C, this may not sound too large,
but one has to consider that the first 1.2 C of the 1.5 to 4.5 C, is physics based and not part of the
amplified feedback prediction. This leaves us with an uncertainty of 3 C in with a range of predicted
amplified feedback warming of between .3 and 3.3 C, I.E. the uncertainty is as large as over 90%
of the predicted range.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

When the IPCC misrepresents the science, why should we give them respect?

When you misrepresent the science, why should we give you respect?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

You have no idea what you are talking about, clearly.

The worste case scenarios from the IPCC and any real science show at most a 3.8c warming from now, or there abouts, by 2100. There is no science that supports the idea that all of humanity is at risk of death due to this at any time in the future.

Millions are starving now. Billions are pushed down into poverty dus to the manipulation of the food prices by the use of food as fuel. How much evil do you think is acceptable to avoid a fantasy problem in this real world?

Again, world hunger is a red herring. If you want to solve world hunger, be my guest.

I find it amusing that you think a 3.8 degree C warming would not impact agriculture. Ignorance is hardly a valid excuse.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Again, world hunger is a red herring. If you want to solve world hunger, be my guest.

I find it amusing that you think a 3.8 degree C warming would not impact agriculture. Ignorance is hardly a valid excuse.

+3.8 c would impact food production. It would increase it dramatically.

+3.8c is about the same as moving 300 - 450 miles south. How would that effect the crops that are grown bearing in mind that the desert zones are likely to shrink because a warmer world is a far wetter world.

Also, of course, increased CO2 increases crop productivity.

World hunger, outside war zones, would be instantly solved by the removal of all agricultural subsidies and market manipulations by governments. Biodeisel is a crime against humanity.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

+3.8 c would impact food production. It would increase it dramatically.

+3.8c is about the same as moving 300 - 450 miles south. How would that effect the crops that are grown bearing in mind that the desert zones are likely to shrink because a warmer world is a far wetter world.

Also, of course, increased CO2 increases crop productivity.

World hunger, outside war zones, would be instantly solved by the removal of all agricultural subsidies and market manipulations by governments. Biodeisel is a crime against humanity.

So you want to warm the planet on purpose ?

But you also think we don't understand how it's warming ?

And you don't see any flaw in your reckless "plan" ?

 

[longview]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

So you want to warm the planet on purpose ?

But you also think we don't understand how it's warming ?

And you don't see any flaw in your reckless "plan" ?

First off, Even if we could succeed in doubling the CO2 level, which is unlikely,
the ECS would be much closer to 2 C rather than 3.8 C.
While there have been many shroud wavers speculating on the numbers of people who will
die if "X" happens, it is speculation. We think we understand a few of the variables of climate,
yet the uncertainty is still very close to the prediction level, and has been such for almost 20 years.