Global heating pushes tropical regions towards limits of human livability

[Lord of Planar]

You cannot have a net overall drying trend, if you are relying on a net overall increase in atmospheric humidity
for the amplified feedback, of the CO2 caused warming!
If you do not have the amplified feedback, then the predicted warming is so low as to not be of concern.
Of course there is also a question as to why your choose a quote from AR4 as opposed to AR5?
AR5 Technical Summary
"The most recent and most comprehensive analyses of river runoff do not support the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) conclusion that global runoff has increased during the 20th century. New results also indicate that the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. {2.5.2, 2.6. "

He was just doing their typical cherry picking.

 

[Buzz]

Back at you. Please show me where the IPCC addresses quantitative albedo changes on snow and ice caused by aerosols.

Please show me where any of your side has corrected activists for pointing our the drop in atmospheric aerosols after the late 1970's has contributed to warning after 1980 which is a common starting point for activism claiming high warming.

Back at you? Do you know what that term even means? Obviously not. A proper "back at you" would include something like you showing us all an instance of me getting something just completely wrong. But we all know you are incapable of doing something like that.

So... you just make more demands that I do all the work and prove something else you say is also wrong. No, thanks. And what's really funny is that I have already schooled you on albedo changes more than once. I even provided a peer-reviewed study as evidence while you have yet to provide anything at all that backs up your belief. And now you want me to do it again. If you are so damn smart and well-read on the subject then why do I have to repeatedly school you on topics you claim to be an expert on?

 

[Buzz]

Was it you who said that changes in aerosols can only cause cooling?

If you really knew and understood what I have been saying about aerosols over the last couple of years you wouldn't be asking me such a stupid question.

So... tell me this longview, do you just not comprehend my arguments, or are you just ignoring them?

 

[longview]

If you really knew and understood what I have been saying about aerosols over the last couple of years you wouldn't be asking me such a stupid question.

So... tell me this longview, do you just not comprehend my arguments, or are you just ignoring them?

Not at all, I am wondering why you choose to ignore the studies showing that increases in aerosols caused cooling until about 1988,
and then the reduction of those same aerosols cause warming?

 

[Buzz]

Not at all, I am wondering why you choose to ignore the studies showing that increases in aerosols caused cooling until about 1988,
and then the reduction of those same aerosols cause warming?

I have never ignored any studies as you claim. And I challenge you to quote and link to any times that I have.

But what I have done is call you out when you mischaracterize a reduction of aerosols as an increase in positive forcing when, in reality, it is a reduction of a negative forcing.

 

[longview]

I have never ignored any studies as you claim. And I challenge you to quote and link to any times that I have.

But what I have done is call you out when you mischaracterize a reduction of aerosols as an increase in positive forcing when, in reality, it is a reduction of a negative forcing.

The problem with that view is that we do not actually know the period of the dimming.
The studies look at dimming and brightening since 1950, but imagine if aerosols have been causing dimming for 2 centuries,
and the reversal of two centuries of dimming happened in six decades?
We could be seeing only a portion of the curve, and the clearing of the aerosols could actually be a positive forcing,
increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the ground!

 

[Buzz]

The problem with that view is that we do not actually know the period of the dimming.
The studies look at dimming and brightening since 1950, but imagine if aerosols have been causing dimming for 2 centuries,
and the reversal of two centuries of dimming happened in six decades?
We could be seeing only a portion of the curve, and the clearing of the aerosols could actually be a positive forcing,
increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the ground!
View attachment 67325424

Really? Your just going to repeat that completely idiotic statement that a negative forcing is really a positive forcing?



I would love to see you try and get that peer-reviewed!

You have gone off the deep end, long.

 

[longview]

Really? Your just going to repeat that completely idiotic statement that a negative forcing is really a positive forcing?



I would love to see you try and get that peer-reviewed!

You have gone off the deep end, long.

So you know for a fact what the solar isolation was in the 1700's !
We do not know how long we had aerosol dimming occurring, We do know
that we reversed it in the late 1980's, so the total amount of positive and the total amount of negative forcing may be unknown.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I've experienced heat stroke at 95F with 75% humidity for a 130F "feels like" which is the beginning of the danger range for likelihood of heat stroke/heat exhaustion with prolonged exposure. I probably could have handled it if I were younger, but no longer will I go outside in temp/humid like that anymore. At least hell is a dry heat.

The final straw that forced me to decide that we had to leave North Texas after ten years (thirteen in the Deep South total) is when my wife (who was still driving back then) went to the Walmart in Mansfield, TX and upon returning to the hot van, dropped her keys after rolling up the ramp, going inside and closing the door.
She managed to fruitlessly attempt to reach down and grab for them for a couple of minutes when she began to pass out from heatstroke.
It was 109 that day with about what I'd say was 65% relative humidity and the inside of the van was probably well over 125.

I got a phone call and her voice was unintelligible until she said that she was still at Walmart and couldn't get out of the car.
I ran every red light the whole 3 miles there and met EMS in the parking lot.
She had mere minutes to spare, because MS-ers melt pretty quickly in heat like that.
Unless accompanied, she'd pretty much been prisoner in the house for five months every year we'd been there and she just wanted to be independent one day and do something by herself, just go shopping.
And apparently the cost of dropping your keys and being unable to pick them back up from your wheelchair in that state is death from heatstroke, and I was no longer willing to gamble with odds like that.

She could have managed to move back over to the door and reopen it but that's just how quickly the heat got to her, she couldn't get it together in her head to think something like that through...she simply rolled into the van, dropped her keys and within the space of a couple of minutes she'd turned into a blithering idiot who could not do anything.
It's almost like she was a kitten thrown into a microwave or something.

Oh yeah, one more thing, Texas is where I learned that rearview mirrors fall off their windshield stickum mounts.
They really should offer a "Texas mirror" option where the mirror mount is SCREWED INTO the body of the vehicle rather than adhered by a sticky glue mount on the glass.
Every car we ever owned down there experienced rearview mirror failure like that, every single car.
And tail light lenses routinely fall off too, for the same reason, the heat melts the glue and the lenses just fall off while you're going down the road.
And all because car manufacturers want to save a couple of dollars by not having to screw the lenses onto the body.
I've also had sideview mirror glass just fall out of the mirror because the glue melted...again, just rolling down the road and BLAMMO, your sideview mirror glass just goes bye-bye!
This is utterly unacceptable and it's just one more sign that you live in a place that is not fit for human habitation, no matter how cheap it is.
And besides, you're not really saving all that much money if your A/C bill is 700 dollars a month on top of the rest of your electric use for five months out of the year.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The problem with that view is that we do not actually know the period of the dimming.
The studies look at dimming and brightening since 1950, but imagine if aerosols have been causing dimming for 2 centuries,
and the reversal of two centuries of dimming happened in six decades?
We could be seeing only a portion of the curve, and the clearing of the aerosols could actually be a positive forcing,
increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the ground!
View attachment 67325424

This appears rather spot on to me. Aerosols in the northern hemisphere have kept the warming from occurring in any measurable means outside of the noise margin. It wasn't until the first world nations took actions against pollution, that we saw the warming we should have had. The only industrialized nation in the southern hemisphere is Australia, and at the time, an small portion of the industrial world population.

The warming in both cases over the 42 years, according to the graphs, is approximately 0.5 degrees.

You, I, and others, and other, have repeatedly pointed out that the sharp rise sing the 80's is only so because we started clearing the skies that we polluted. The AGW cult members like to claim extreme warming from the slops of temperatures since the 80’s and deny the facts. It is possible that all or most of this warming shown, was the lagged result from the solar peak of 1958.

The AGW followers just don’t get it. There is no proof or good evidence that the levels of CO2 we emit are causing any problems.

Pollution… Absolutely. We most certainly need to address pollution. This is where we need to focus.

 

[watsup]

This appears rather spot on to me. Aerosols in the northern hemisphere have kept the warming from occurring in any measurable means outside of the noise margin. It wasn't until the first world nations took actions against pollution, that we saw the warming we should have had. The only industrialized nation in the southern hemisphere is Australia, and at the time, an small portion of the industrial world population.

The warming in both cases over the 42 years, according to the graphs, is approximately 0.5 degrees.

You, I, and others, and other, have repeatedly pointed out that the sharp rise sing the 80's is only so because we started clearing the skies that we polluted. The AGW cult members like to claim extreme warming from the slops of temperatures since the 80’s and deny the facts. It is possible that all or most of this warming shown, was the lagged result from the solar peak of 1958.

The AGW followers just don’t get it. There is no proof or good evidence that the levels of CO2 we emit are causing any problems.

Pollution… Absolutely. We most certainly need to address pollution. This is where we need to focus.

Excess CO2 to the point that it is the highest in the atmosphere in literally millions of years IS pollution.

 

[bluesmoke]

The final straw that forced me to decide that we had to leave North Texas after ten years (thirteen in the Deep South total) is when my wife (who was still driving back then) went to the Walmart in Mansfield, TX and upon returning to the hot van, dropped her keys after rolling up the ramp, going inside and closing the door.
She managed to fruitlessly attempt to reach down and grab for them for a couple of minutes when she began to pass out from heatstroke.
It was 109 that day with about what I'd say was 65% relative humidity and the inside of the van was probably well over 125.

I got a phone call and her voice was unintelligible until she said that she was still at Walmart and couldn't get out of the car.
I ran every red light the whole 3 miles there and met EMS in the parking lot.
She had mere minutes to spare, because MS-ers melt pretty quickly in heat like that.
Unless accompanied, she'd pretty much been prisoner in the house for five months every year we'd been there and she just wanted to be independent one day and do something by herself, just go shopping.
And apparently the cost of dropping your keys and being unable to pick them back up from your wheelchair in that state is death from heatstroke, and I was no longer willing to gamble with odds like that.

She could have managed to move back over to the door and reopen it but that's just how quickly the heat got to her, she couldn't get it together in her head to think something like that through...she simply rolled into the van, dropped her keys and within the space of a couple of minutes she'd turned into a blithering idiot who could not do anything.
It's almost like she was a kitten thrown into a microwave or something.

Oh yeah, one more thing, Texas is where I learned that rearview mirrors fall off their windshield stickum mounts.
They really should offer a "Texas mirror" option where the mirror mount is SCREWED INTO the body of the vehicle rather than adhered by a sticky glue mount on the glass.
Every car we ever owned down there experienced rearview mirror failure like that, every single car.
And tail light lenses routinely fall off too, for the same reason, the heat melts the glue and the lenses just fall off while you're going down the road.
And all because car manufacturers want to save a couple of dollars by not having to screw the lenses onto the body.
I've also had sideview mirror glass just fall out of the mirror because the glue melted...again, just rolling down the road and BLAMMO, your sideview mirror glass just goes bye-bye!
This is utterly unacceptable and it's just one more sign that you live in a place that is not fit for human habitation, no matter how cheap it is.
And besides, you're not really saving all that much money if your A/C bill is 700 dollars a month on top of the rest of your electric use for five months out of the year.

You can look up "feels like temperature graph" and see your wife was in the danger zone of a "feels like" 118F. Temp affects my body much diff as I age. I was walking my dog last summer in near 100F temp and a rare 70+ RH, translating to 125F feels like, which is which for extended period of time is risking health/life. Near the end of the block, I realized it would be all I could do to get back. I called by PCP, who told me to go to urgent care to where my neighbor drove me. They tested me and sent my the the ER. I was released some hrs later and my PCP said I had mild heat stroke. Up until then, I'd tolerated heat quite well. Now, I can't tolerate heat at all. Anything over 85 and I stay in with the AC at 68.
I hope your wife is doing well now, wherever you live. Maybe she feels the heat like never before now, too. I used to run in the hills in that heat, though dry.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You can look up "feels like temperature graph" and see your wife was in the danger zone of a "feels like" 118F. Temp affects my body much diff as I age. I was walking my dog last summer in near 100F temp and a rare 70+ RH, translating to 125F feels like, which is which for extended period of time is risking health/life. Near the end of the block, I realized it would be all I could do to get back. I called by PCP, who told me to go to urgent care to where my neighbor drove me. They tested me and sent my the the ER. I was released some hrs later and my PCP said I had mild heat stroke. Up until then, I'd tolerated heat quite well. Now, I can't tolerate heat at all. Anything over 85 and I stay in with the AC at 68.
I hope your wife is doing well now, wherever you live. Maybe she feels the heat like never before now, too. I used to run in the hills in that heat, though dry.

It's the reason we moved back to Southern California.
Both of us had lived here back before we were together as a couple, so we both understood what SoCal is like.
Funny thing is, you're right about body changes with age because Karen grew up in humid McHenry IL and I grew up in even worse Washington DC.
For me, I think living in Minneapolis during the formative years of my young adulthood may have played a role in changing my ability to deal with heat and humidity.
But that's just a guess on my part.
It might just be me getting older.
Thing is, Karen's actually a pretty tough lil chickie.
Here she is back in 2003 doing track events and winning five gold medals at the National Veterans Wheelchair Games.



But that WAS in Long Beach California, not Texas.
While she was training IN Texas she had another much less dangerous episode of heatstroke on the track.
Fortunately we were able to carry her off the track and get her back to normal with air conditioning, water, ice packs and a few minutes of calm.
But she drooped and fell over in much the same way as she did in that hot van.
The fact that we saw it happening and got to her quickly made all the difference.

You know what they say...Texas is "No Country for Old Men"....or old women either, I guess.

 

[bluesmoke]

You cannot have a net overall drying trend, if you are relying on a net overall increase in atmospheric humidity
for the amplified feedback, of the CO2 caused warming!
If you do not have the amplified feedback, then the predicted warming is so low as to not be of concern.
Of course there is also a question as to why your choose a quote from AR4 as opposed to AR5?
AR5 Technical Summary
"The most recent and most comprehensive analyses of river runoff do not support the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) conclusion that global runoff has increased during the 20th century. New results also indicate that the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. {2.5.2, 2.6. "

Whatever you question of me from my “choosing” a quote from AR4 vs AR5 is a false presumption.

Your "global runoff" and "amplified feedback" is more "longview" distraction and mislead.

In the Tech Summary of the AR5:

(See page 91, last sent):
Regional to global-scale projected decreases in soil moisture and increased risk of agricultural drought are likely in presently dry regions and are projected with medium confidence by the end of this century under the RCP8.5 scenario.

In the Synthesis Report of the AR5:

(See pg 6, 2nd to last sent):
Assessment of many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops shows that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence).

(See pg 8, 2nd para):
There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. Recent detection of increasing trends in extreme precipitation and discharge in some catchments implies greater risks of flooding at regional scale (medium confidence). It is likely that extreme sea levels (for example, as experienced in storm surges) have increased since 1970, being mainly a result of rising mean sea level.

(See pg 8, 3rd para):
Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence). {1.4}

(See pg 13, last para):
Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement).

AR5 Synthesis Report - Climate Change 2014 (ipcc.ch)

What you continually fail to understand is that the IMPACT of various areas of drying, incl drought, affects global food supply. It’s the EFFECT of climate change that is the concern. That includes extreme weather events from both wetting and drying patterns brought on by anthropogenic drivers on climate change.

You keep bringing up ankle-biter points that do not change the fact that due to anthropogenic climate change, the planet is getting warmer, ice mass is melting, sea level is rising, and there are more extreme weather events that impact our daily lives and sustainability. You have yet to refute the IPCC position of anthropogenic climate change and it’s impact on the planet and effect on human life. I take the IPCC position, as I always have. You falsely imply that what I say is not the IPCC position. You’re a waste of time.

 

[bluesmoke]

I am not sure if your realize this, but your link is about deforestation in the Amazon, not the temperature in the tropics related to
increases in greenhouse gases.
Please consider that when the CO2-eq level doubles, the tropics may be about .66C warmer,
and most of that will be in evening lows not daytime highs.
Also consider that the likelihood of a second doubling of CO2-eq, is nearly impossible.

I'm guessing you either did not read or comprehend the article. Usually, I would have summarized it for you, or specified where in the article was the most pertinent info, because I don't like info-spamming. But it's a brief enough read to where I didn't think it necessary.

Incr temp causes the tropical forest to dry which makes forest fires more frequent which doesn't work well in tropical ecosystems as it might in others where fires are more ecologically manageable.

Large areas of the tropics have been turned over to farmland which crops have been negatively impacted by incr temp as described in the article.

 

[longview]

Whatever you question of me from my “choosing” a quote from AR4 vs AR5 is a false presumption.

Your "global runoff" and "amplified feedback" is more "longview" distraction and mislead.

In the Tech Summary of the AR5:

(See page 91, last sent):
Regional to global-scale projected decreases in soil moisture and increased risk of agricultural drought are likely in presently dry regions and are projected with medium confidence by the end of this century under the RCP8.5 scenario. RCP8.5 is all but impossible

In the Synthesis Report of the AR5:

(See pg 6, 2nd to last sent):
Assessment of many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops shows that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence). Crop yields are up almost globally

(See pg 8, 2nd para):
There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. Recent detection of increasing trends in extreme precipitation and discharge in some catchments implies greater risks of flooding at regional scale (medium confidence). It is likely that extreme sea levels (for example, as experienced in storm surges) have increased since 1970, being mainly a result of rising mean sea level. The sea level was rising since before the CO2 level was increasing and will continue to rise, until it starts to fall, Human actions will not have much effect on sea level.

(See pg 8, 3rd para):
Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence). {1.4} Climate extremes always effect people, if we have more people, then more people are affected.

(See pg 13, last para):
Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement).
WOW! who is predicting 4°C above late 20th century levels?, and did you read the footnote 13?
" Projected warming averaged over land is larger than global average warming for all RCP scenarios for the period 2081–2100 relative to 1986–2005. For regional projections "
AR5 Synthesis Report - Climate Change 2014 (ipcc.ch)

What you continually fail to understand is that the IMPACT of various areas of drying, incl drought, affects global food supply. It’s the EFFECT of climate change that is the concern. That includes extreme weather events from both wetting and drying patterns brought on by anthropogenic drivers on climate change.

You keep bringing up ankle-biter points that do not change the fact that due to anthropogenic climate change, the planet is getting warmer, ice mass is melting, sea level is rising, and there are more extreme weather events that impact our daily lives and sustainability. You have yet to refute the IPCC position of anthropogenic climate change and it’s impact on the planet and effect on human life. I take the IPCC position, as I always have. You falsely imply that what I say is not the IPCC position. You’re a waste of time.

I am not sure you understand that the IPCC's position, is not actually a position, but a collection of "What IF" scenarios.
I will go through a few on your list to point it out in Bold.

 

[longview]

I'm guessing you either did not read or comprehend the article. Usually, I would have summarized it for you, or specified where in the article was the most pertinent info, because I don't like info-spamming. But it's a brief enough read to where I didn't think it necessary.

Incr temp causes the tropical forest to dry which makes forest fires more frequent which doesn't work well in tropical ecosystems as it might in others where fires are more ecologically manageable.

Large areas of the tropics have been turned over to farmland which crops have been negatively impacted by incr temp as described in the article.

Again the article is not about CO2 based climate change as much as it is about the effects of deforestation.

 

[bluesmoke]

Why? I never claimed AGW doesn't have an impact. I said it doesn't have the future problems you doomsday types claim.

AGW is real. How many times must I reiterate that? For some damn reason, you think to seem that since I don't agree with the doom and gloom, I deny AGW.

That's your problem. I have no concept as to how to bring you into reality.

I take it you have no responce to post 170. Instead, you sidetrack things.

No. It is your post #170 that was a non-responsive reply to mine, mine ending with "Give me something that has backing from the science community that changes anything of the AGW impact on our planet. You can't." Well, you can't and you didn't as your reply #170 so failed.

I don’t care that you have no agreement with what you perceive as those whom have a “doomsday” belief in AGW impact on the planet. But, you also, as best I can tell, do not believe that there is any enough anthropogenic effect on climate change that has significant negative impact on the planet such that would require considerable, expensive, human response.

My position is that of IPCC and their view of the need for human response to anthropogenic cause of climate change. You haven’t come up with anything that has any significant scientific community backing that would cause any real change in that IPCC position. Without that, your posting is of no significance to me or the net reality of climate change.

 

[istodolez]

No. It is your post #170 that was a non-responsive reply to mine, mine ending with "Give me something that has backing from the science community that changes anything of the AGW impact on our planet. You can't." Well, you can't and you didn't as your reply #170 so failed.

I don’t care that you have no agreement with what you perceive as those whom have a “doomsday” belief in AGW impact on the planet. But, you also, as best I can tell, do not believe that there is any enough anthropogenic effect on climate change that has significant negative impact on the planet such that would require considerable, expensive, human response.

My position is that of IPCC and their view of the need for human response to anthropogenic cause of climate change. You haven’t come up with anything that has any significant scientific community backing that would cause any real change in that IPCC position. Without that, your posting is of no significance to me or the net reality of climate change.

There are a tiny minority of legitimate climate scientists who call into question the science (namely Lindzen, Curry and Spencer). And it is to these folks that the "Skeptic" and denialist turn for support. But the irony is that most "skeptics" and denialists are, themselves, unsuited to determine which science is the most accurate and in siding with the tiny fringe minority they are "betting against the house".

Because in the end for all of us on here, none of whom are trained climatologists, we are ALL appealing to authority of one form or another. And in selecting the authority that is in the vast, vast, vast, vast minority is to essentially be partaking in "bias confirmation" to the extreme.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No. It is your post #170 that was a non-responsive reply to mine, mine ending with "Give me something that has backing from the science community that changes anything of the AGW impact on our planet. You can't." Well, you can't and you didn't as your reply #170 so failed.

There is no reason to do that. The AGW impact is has such uncertainty, why should I even consider you silly request?

I don’t care that you have no agreement with what you perceive as those whom have a “doomsday” belief in AGW impact on the planet. But, you also, as best I can tell, do not believe that there is any enough anthropogenic effect on climate change that has significant negative impact on the planet such that would require considerable, expensive, human response.

We have considerable impact. Actual land use changes and real pollution. CO2 is not any where close the the damages pollution and land use causes.

My position is that of IPCC and their view of the need for human response to anthropogenic cause of climate change. You haven’t come up with anything that has any significant scientific community backing that would cause any real change in that IPCC position. Without that, your posting is of no significance to me or the net reality of climate change.

So, you admit to a lemming like attitude. Following what the agenda driven world government agency says, without caring about the facts.

OK. I understand.

 

[longview]

There are a tiny minority of legitimate climate scientists who call into question the science (namely Lindzen, Curry and Spencer). And it is to these folks that the "Skeptic" and denialist turn for support. But the irony is that most "skeptics" and denialists are, themselves, unsuited to determine which science is the most accurate and in siding with the tiny fringe minority they are "betting against the house".

Because in the end for all of us on here, none of whom are trained climatologists, we are ALL appealing to authority of one form or another. And in selecting the authority that is in the vast, vast, vast, vast minority is to essentially be partaking in "bias confirmation" to the extreme.

Anyone trained in Science can evaluate certain aspects of the claims of climate science!
If the claim is that a warming perturbation will cause X amount of feedback, that can be evaluated against
the observed responses to past warming perturbations.

 

[istodolez]

Anyone trained in Science can evaluate certain aspects of the claims of climate science!

Incorrect.

If the claim is that a warming perturbation will cause X amount of feedback, that can be evaluated against
the observed responses to past warming perturbations.

Then put it before the experts and see if you are right.

 

[bluesmoke]

I am not sure you understand that the IPCC's position, is not actually a position, but a collection of "What IF" scenarios.
I will go through a few on your list to point it out in Bold.

Now you argue semantics. When the IPCC makes an assessment, that is taking a position. Period. Whether that is a position or not does not change your inability to refute the IPCC assessment.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your BS, but for one. Crop yields have to do with all that is the human effort to grow food. There are more negative impacts on crop yields from ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) that are nonetheless overcome by human effort.

All you ever do is keep coming back with ankle-biter, against the wall throws that do not have any substantial backing from the scientific community, being represented by the IPCC ARs. I agree with the IPCC assessment and am taking their "position", "side" or whatever you want to call it. Unless you can refute the IPCC with the scientific backing of the climate science community, which would change that assessment, there is no sense in our debating this issue any further. You're a waste of time.

 

[longview]

Now you argue semantics. When the IPCC makes an assessment, that is taking a position. Period. Whether that is a position or not does not change your inability to refute the IPCC assessment.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your BS, but for one. Crop yields have to do with all that is the human effort to grow food. There are more negative impacts on crop yields from ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) that are nonetheless overcome by human effort.

All you ever do is keep coming back with ankle-biter, against the wall throws that do not have any substantial backing from the scientific community, being represented by the IPCC ARs. I agree with the IPCC assessment and am taking their "position", "side" or whatever you want to call it. Unless you can refute the IPCC with the scientific backing of the climate science community, which would change that assessment, there is no sense in our debating this issue any further. You're a waste of time.

Let's consider the IPCC's "position" On the Warming expected from doubling the CO2 level,
the IPCC still has the 1.5 to 4.5C range, and further say that no best estimate of ECS can be found.
IPCC AR5 SPM
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
This is like saying a non stop trip to another town, that normally takes 1 hour, can take anywhere from 30 minuets to 3 hours, without a good guess
of how long it will actually take!
Crops grow better at higher CO2 levels, and the studies that say otherwise, split a few hairs to do so.
Overall crop yields per acre planted have increased to unimaginable levels from a century ago.

 

[istodolez]

Crops grow better at higher CO2 levels, and the studies that say otherwise, split a few hairs to do so.
Overall crop yields per acre planted have increased to unimaginable levels from a century ago.

This is a gross oversimplification. As has been noted increasing CO2 is, essentially a food or "fertilizer" for the plants meaning that if the added CO2 did NOTHING to the climate it might result in improved crop yields. But virtually NO ONE believes that added CO2 won't affect the climate. It WILL lead to more warming (which can either negatively or positively affect the crop yeild), it WILL LIKELY also alter patterns of precipitation in various regions, meaning that added CO2 could very well lead to decreased water availability for the plants.

The classic example is: put the plants in a greenhouse, don't add water, allow the temp to skyrocket, just pump up the CO2 and see how quickly the plants die.