- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,567
- Reaction score
- 22,192
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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.
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.
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.
That is not quite true. The research is good enough to show enough risk to warrant research and development in alternative technologies.
That is why the R&D is important. It is sort of like taking out insurance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I would like to point out that even without any risk, there is still a profit basis to warrantThat 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.
That is not quite true. The research is good enough to show enough risk to warrant research and development in alternative technologies.
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?
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?
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!
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'm guessing because it was cold outside today?On what evidence do you base your claim that the world has not warmed?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?