My Own Silly Thought

[Lord of Planar]

Just scanning various material, I noted a letter in the journal called Nature I thought was laughable.

Climate sensitivity constrained by CO: 2: concentrations over the past 420[thinsp]million years : Abstract : Nature

Please note the number of footnotes:

A recent synthesis2 suggests that the increase in global-mean surface temperature in response to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, termed 'climate sensitivity', is between 1.5 and 6.2 °C (5–95 per cent likelihood range), but some evidence is inconsistent with this range1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

This seems to be the normal. Papers get published all the time that disagree with consensus, then the portrayed consensus agrees with them.

Please note, the one paper, note 2, agrees, but it also disagrees, notes 1 to 5.

What is the real consensus?

 

[LowDown]

Just scanning various material, I noted a letter in the journal called Nature I thought was laughable.

Climate sensitivity constrained by CO: 2: concentrations over the past 420[thinsp]million years : Abstract : Nature

Please note the number of footnotes:



This seems to be the normal. Papers get published all the time that disagree with consensus, then the portrayed consensus agrees with them.

Please note, the one paper, note 2, agrees, but it also disagrees, notes 1 to 5.

What is the real consensus?

This reads like WG1 of the IPCC report. There's still an awful lot of uncertainty about future climate, more than enough to render predictions useless for making policy.

 

[joG]

This reads like WG1 of the IPCC report. There's still an awful lot of uncertainty about future climate, more than enough to render predictions useless for making policy.

That is not quite true. The research is good enough to show enough risk to warrant research and development in alternative technologies.

 

[jimbo]

That is not quite true. The research is good enough to show enough risk to warrant research and development in alternative technologies.

There is a difference between research and development, even putting aside for the moment who should fund the research and technology, and making policy based on flawed arguments.

 

[joG]

There is a difference between research and development, even putting aside for the moment who should fund the research and technology, and making policy based on flawed arguments.

That is why the R&D is important. It is sort of like taking out insurance.

 

[code1211]

That is not quite true. The research is good enough to show enough risk to warrant research and development in alternative technologies.

Why? The Research that is being done is just dandy, but the results of the research seem to indicate that the outcomes may or may not be good or bad.

What is the justification for a massive investment to stop something that may or may not ever happen?

Should we also begin the immediate construction of a defense shield around the planet that will reverse a possible Space Alien Invasion?

This is another thing that may or may not ever happen. Another thing that may or may not be good or bad.

 

[jimbo]

That is why the R&D is important. It is sort of like taking out insurance.

That wasn't the issue in the post you addressed.

Policy vs R & D.

Government's natural inclination is always toward policy, not R & D. Which is why government funded climate issues start with a predetermined conclusion and work backward toward tax and restriction.

Private funding is the opposite. The goal is to determine if a set of situations is viable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This reads like WG1 of the IPCC report. There's still an awful lot of uncertainty about future climate, more than enough to render predictions useless for making policy.

Exactly.

From all the uncertainty, they choose to select and cherry pick what they want.

Funny thing is, most of the material disagrees with their consensus!

 

[joG]

Why? The Research that is being done is just dandy, but the results of the research seem to indicate that the outcomes may or may not be good or bad.

What is the justification for a massive investment to stop something that may or may not ever happen?

Should we also begin the immediate construction of a defense shield around the planet that will reverse a possible Space Alien Invasion?

This is another thing that may or may not ever happen. Another thing that may or may not be good or bad.

Massive investment is only justified, when the risk is very high that a large loss must be expected. That is why the R&D is a good idea, because it is not a massive investment. But it would reduce the required investment, should it turn out to be necessary.

 

[code1211]

Massive investment is only justified, when the risk is very high that a large loss must be expected. That is why the R&D is a good idea, because it is not a massive investment. But it would reduce the required investment, should it turn out to be necessary.

Good! Until the outcomes are far more predictable and attributable, the massive investment should be withheld.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Good! Until the outcomes are far more predictable and attributable, the massive investment should be withheld.

Can I slightly disagree;

Untill either the science is far more robust and predictable or the climate shows significant signs of actually heating to any sort of dangerous level large investment in anything other than research should be withheld.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can I slightly disagree;

Untill either the science is far more robust and predictable or the climate shows significant signs of actually heating to any sort of dangerous level large investment in anything other than research should be withheld.

I'm OK with still studying the effects, as long as the studies are seeking the truth, instead of still trying to support fairy tales.

 

[code1211]

Can I slightly disagree;

Untill either the science is far more robust and predictable or the climate shows significant signs of actually heating to any sort of dangerous level large investment in anything other than research should be withheld.

Fair enough!

 

[Threegoofs]

Funny.

In one denier thread, the argument is that all the data is being manipulated to get results 'alarmists' need.

In another thread, the argument is that the 'alarmists' can't model things accurately because they are all riding a gravy train of grants and make everything 'alarmist'.

Another thread shows how wonderful CO2 and a warmer world will be (despite the fact it's not happening/won't get worse/is just A scientist money grab).

Now in this thread, the argument is that the data they have and modeled projections are really no big deal, sand the numbers are not bad at all.

I guess when you are desperate for material, contradictory ideas are easier to hold on to than reality!

 

[Tim the plumber]

Funny.

In one denier thread, the argument is that all the data is being manipulated to get results 'alarmists' need.

In another thread, the argument is that the 'alarmists' can't model things accurately because they are all riding a gravy train of grants and make everything 'alarmist'.

Another thread shows how wonderful CO2 and a warmer world will be (despite the fact it's not happening/won't get worse/is just A scientist money grab).

Now in this thread, the argument is that the data they have and modeled projections are really no big deal, sand the numbers are not bad at all.

I guess when you are desperate for material, contradictory ideas are easier to hold on to than reality!

Your take on it is the odd bit.

From numbers which show very clear signs of being manipulated you see cause to panic but I see nothing to worry about even from those inflated numbers.

The increase in CO2, which nobody disputes, is a major boom to plants and thus all life.

The world has not warmed but if it did, a bit, that would indeed be a good thing.

I think you are just utterly terrified about any idea of change at all.

 

[longview]

That is not quite true. The research is good enough to show enough risk to warrant research and development in alternative technologies.

I would like to point out that even without any risk, there is still a profit basis to warrant
research and development into alternative energy technology.
There is not however, a basis to warrant legislation.

 

[jmotivator]

I would like to point out that even without any risk, there is still a profit basis to warrant
research and development into alternative energy technology.
There is not however, a basis to warrant legislation.

Exactly. There is always a reason to research cleaner energy sources, and energy conservation. LED bulbs are awesome, I use nothing but LED bulbs in my house as they benefit me directly. I do not, however, back any legislation to force LED bulbs on my neighbors.

Hell, the last onerous bulb legislation was trying to push the awful neon bulbs on everyone...

The same applies to all new energy and energy saving technology. Make an awesome product and I will use it happily. Try and force terrible technology on me and I will resist it.

 

[LowDown]

That is not quite true. The research is good enough to show enough risk to warrant research and development in alternative technologies.

I agree that further research is warranted.

 

[Poor Debater]

Just scanning various material, I noted a letter in the journal called Nature I thought was laughable.

Climate sensitivity constrained by CO: 2: concentrations over the past 420[thinsp]million years : Abstract : Nature

Please note the number of footnotes:



This seems to be the normal. Papers get published all the time that disagree with consensus, then the portrayed consensus agrees with them.

Please note, the one paper, note 2, agrees, but it also disagrees, notes 1 to 5.

What is the real consensus?

Not one of the five cited papers takes issue with the consensus, although all do cite minority opinions. That's just normal science working normally.

The consensus is what the IPCC says it is: between 1.5° and 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. Although if you dig deeper, there are two basic methods for determining sensitivity: modelling, and paleo reconstruction. Of the two, modelling has about twice the variability as paleo, although their ranges overlap completely. If I were to bet the farm, I'd go with a paleo-only consensus of about 2.5 to 4. Or you can just go with Royer 2007 and say 2.8, since he's using the longest timeframe.

Also be aware that sensitivity is probably not a constant, but changes as temperature changes. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

 

[Poor Debater]

Why? The Research that is being done is just dandy, but the results of the research seem to indicate that the outcomes may or may not be good or bad.

What is the justification for a massive investment to stop something that may or may not ever happen?

Should we also begin the immediate construction of a defense shield around the planet that will reverse a possible Space Alien Invasion?

As soon as there is a 97% consensus among astronomers that such an invasion is imminent, we certainly should.

 

[Poor Debater]

Exactly.

From all the uncertainty, they choose to select and cherry pick what they want.

Funny thing is, most of the material disagrees with their consensus!

Please cite all that material that disagrees with the consensus on sensitivity.

 

[Poor Debater]

Your take on it is the odd bit.

From numbers which show very clear signs of being manipulated you see cause to panic but I see nothing to worry about even from those inflated numbers.

The increase in CO2, which nobody disputes, is a major boom to plants and thus all life.

The world has not warmed but if it did, a bit, that would indeed be a good thing.

On what evidence do you base your claim that the world has not warmed?

 

[Threegoofs]

On what evidence do you base your claim that the world has not warmed?

I'm guessing because it was cold outside today?

At least that's what he read on a denier blog.

 

[Tim the plumber]

On what evidence do you base your claim that the world has not warmed?

All the data sets say that the world has not warmed to any significant degree, that is more than the error range, since 1998.

Bearing this in mind what narrowing of the IPCC's predictions do you think is reasonable?

 

[Poor Debater]

All the data sets say that the world has not warmed to any significant degree, that is more than the error range, since 1998.

And yet oddly, you cannot name a single such dataset. So I ask again: on what evidence do you base your claim that the word has not warmed?