STUDY: 'Global warming' has made weather better for most in USA...

[longview]

Why do I take it on blind faith that a new homeopathic remedy the guy across the street cooked up in his bathtub isnt the cure for cancer?

Should I check that one out in detail too? If I end up buying some gold stock tips from him as I check out the theory it might be worthwhile, huh?

Before you discount Dr. Evans work entirely, He was the developer of a carbon accounting model
for the Australian greenhouse office, and worked in the field for 6 years at a PhD level.
One of the main advantages his theory (Yes His is a real theory) over the concept of AGW,
is that he included a falsification criteria. He is saying we should start cooling by 2017.
If he is wrong we will know in the next few years.
So what is the falsification criteria for AGW, oh wait they don't have one.

 

[longview]

Ummm. right.

Except we know that it will be much warmer the more greenhouse gasses we emit in to the atmosphere. There is a good range of uncertainty, but pretending the low end of the range is the most likely scenario ignores the ACTUAL most likely scenario, that its in the middle of the range (3 degrees C with a doubling) and possibly at the high end of the range. And the high end would be devastating to human civilization, where the medium end will be fairly difficult to manage.

So the certainty that we have is that we can limit the potential damage by reducing carbon emissions. And the best way to do that in my mind seems to be to make the emitters of GHG pay for their environmental damage now, instead of pawning it off on future generations.

This gets back to me asking you which RCP YOU thought we were on?
The IPCC has laid out what the range for each scenario, so which one do you think is likely?

 

[AlbqOwl]

The AGW theory "falling apart" is about as likely as a giant conspiracy involving every scientific organization on Earth and their respective governments in order to "keep the money flowing."

Well, there is no shortage of 'climate scientists' willing to support the 'problem' so long as all that lovely government funding keeps flowing to them or so long as they say the right things to be included in the 'in' crowd club. And there is no shortage of politicians willing to use the issue to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. But sooner or later, it is possible that even the most gullible people will begin to see that the so-called 'skeptics' have the better case. Global warming hasn't been working out for the alarmists for some time now so they shift the jargon to 'climate change'. That provides them a whole lot more wiggle room.

And it also could easily adjust to a global cooling projected disaster scenario too if their global warming models came to be seen as so absurd as to be too embarrassing for most of the scientific community to support. But they could get several more decades of mileage out of a global cooling schtick, long enough to complete their careers and retire on all that lovely money..

 

[longview]

Climate Change scientists make inferences based on the evidence they have documented, as well as reasoning. They don't know exactly what the temperature is going to be in 2100, but they have a good idea of what's going to be like.

Actually they do not do it that way. let me give you an example.
In 2014 the Journal Nature had an article describing the pause or Hiatus,
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
In the article they describe the stark contrast between the model and the observed temperatures,
in doing so, we get some insight into their model.

Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

Between 1978 and 1998 they observed warming at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade,
They then took the same rate of warming and expected it to continue.
The models, however complicated, made assumptions that for a given set of inputs, the output would be X.
The level of the inputs stayed the same (increasing CO2), yet the output(weather) did not cooperate.
While this does not say their assumptions were wrong, it does say they were incomplete,
in that other variables are in play beyond their assumptions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I suspect there will be plenty of 'evidence' of global cooling if the whole AGW thing falls completely apart. They have to have some kind of crisis going to keep all that lovely tax payer provided government funding pouring into their study projects.

I don't suspect we will see signs of cooling for another decade or more. As it stands now, we may not have equalization between the ocean as atmosphere, for the solar energies absorbed during the ramp up to the 1958 solar peak. It takes several decades for this heat to equalize.

My best guess is that *IF* the sun continues to be less energetic during the next two solar cycles, cooling will be an absolute.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The AGW theory "falling apart" is about as likely as a giant conspiracy involving every scientific organization on Earth and their respective governments in order to "keep the money flowing."

No matter how many times we remind you that group-think does not equal conspiracy, you stay with that strawman.

Why are you baiting us? If you aren't baiting us, why are you so ignorant?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The whole point is that WE DONT KNOW. All of the RCPs are based upon future behavior, so one cant know what path you are on unless you can predict the future.

The entire point of the issue is to reduce emissions so we stay on the lowest pathway possible.

Have you ever thought about running for public office?

Your way of weaseling out of a direct question is awesome!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Climate Change scientists make inferences based on the evidence they have documented, as well as reasoning. They don't know exactly what the temperature is going to be in 2100, but they have a good idea of what's going to be like.

I would disagree, especially when they ignore inconvenient facts in their papers. It is a game for them. They publish what others want published, rather than the truth. The truth is hard to get published.

 

[Lord of Planar]

but we can say with a high degree of certainty that it will be warmer than it was way back in 2016.

No we can't. Not as long as they stay focused to blame CO2, and refuse to look at other prominent causes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Ummm. right.

Except we know that it will be much warmer the more greenhouse gasses we emit in to the atmosphere. There is a good range of uncertainty, but pretending the low end of the range is the most likely scenario ignores the ACTUAL most likely scenario, that its in the middle of the range (3 degrees C with a doubling) and possibly at the high end of the range. And the high end would be devastating to human civilization, where the medium end will be fairly difficult to manage.

So the certainty that we have is that we can limit the potential damage by reducing carbon emissions. And the best way to do that in my mind seems to be to make the emitters of GHG pay for their environmental damage now, instead of pawning it off on future generations.

LOL...

Did you not understand the question, or just weaseling out of it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

This gets back to me asking you which RCP YOU thought we were on?
The IPCC has laid out what the range for each scenario, so which one do you think is likely?

I'll die of a heart attack of he actually gives you a proper answer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, there is no shortage of 'climate scientists' willing to support the 'problem' so long as all that lovely government funding keeps flowing to them or so long as they say the right things to be included in the 'in' crowd club. And there is no shortage of politicians willing to use the issue to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. But sooner or later, it is possible that even the most gullible people will begin to see that the so-called 'skeptics' have the better case. Global warming hasn't been working out for the alarmists for some time now so they shift the jargon to 'climate change'. That provides them a whole lot more wiggle room.

And it also could easily adjust to a global cooling projected disaster scenario too if their global warming models came to be seen as so absurd as to be too embarrassing for most of the scientific community to support. But they could get several more decades of mileage out of a global cooling schtick, long enough to complete their careers and retire on all that lovely money..

So true.

Bandwagon...

Group-think...

Looking out for ones own best interests...

No conspiracy. Just normal human traits in play.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don't suspect we will see signs of cooling for another decade or more. As it stands now, we may not have equalization between the ocean as atmosphere, for the solar energies absorbed during the ramp up to the 1958 solar peak. It takes several decades for this heat to equalize.

My best guess is that *IF* the sun continues to be less energetic during the next two solar cycles, cooling will be an absolute.

Sooner or later it has to cool or all life as we know it on Planet Earth will end regardless of what humans do re management of the climate--the idea that we puny human can actually manage the climate is in itself rather absurd when you think about it. From what scientists have been able to discern over billions of years, the Earth has warmed to be a tropical climate almost everywhere or conversely cooled into an ice age many many times. There is no reason to think that it will not continue to do so. But we all know the warm periods have been more beneficial for the flora and fauna on Earth than have the cool periods. So we can definitely hope the warming trend will continue for our foreseeable future.

 

[Threegoofs]

Before you discount Dr. Evans work entirely, He was the developer of a carbon accounting model
for the Australian greenhouse office, and worked in the field for 6 years at a PhD level.
One of the main advantages his theory (Yes His is a real theory) over the concept of AGW,
is that he included a falsification criteria. He is saying we should start cooling by 2017.
If he is wrong we will know in the next few years.
So what is the falsification criteria for AGW, oh wait they don't have one.

Yes, and prophets set a date for the end of the world and then tell their followers they were off just a bit in the calculations after the date passes, and please send more money so he can get a better computer to do the calculations.

I suspect Evans will do the same, but just ask for money and give hot gold stock tips instead.

But hey- we all know the Central Bankster Cabal that eliminated the gold standard are the same Illuminati that are pushing Carbon cap and trade because of Evans other scientific theory.

 

[Threegoofs]

Have you ever thought about running for public office?

Your way of weaseling out of a direct question is awesome!

Dont know how much clearer I could be,

How can one know the scenario that will only be clear in 50 years since it depends upon a vast amount of unknowns, such as political action to limit emissions in the future, development of alternate technologies, etc?

For S&G, why dont YOU answer the question of which RCP we are on now? How would an esteemed autodidact like yourself answer that one without predicting the future?

 

[Lord of Planar]

vast amount of unknowns

But...

But... but... but...

You are so certain that we are in peril with AGW...

 

[longview]

Yes, and prophets set a date for the end of the world and then tell their followers they were off just a bit in the calculations after the date passes, and please send more money so he can get a better computer to do the calculations.

I suspect Evans will do the same, but just ask for money and give hot gold stock tips instead.

But hey- we all know the Central Bankster Cabal that eliminated the gold standard are the same Illuminati that are pushing Carbon cap and trade because of Evans other scientific theory.

I have not seen any request from Dr. Evans for money, the information is freely available.
Any blind faith appears to be with the followers of AGW.

 

[longview]

But...

But... but... but...

You are so certain that we are in peril with AGW...

I am thinking you are safe from that heart attack!

 

[Threegoofs]

But...

But... but... but...

You are so certain that we are in peril with AGW...

Guess answering the question would have been uncomfortable for you. I know the chest pain can often be quite excruciating.

 

[longview]

Guess answering the question would have been uncomfortable for you. I know the chest pain can often be quite excruciating.

So I take it you refuse to give an answer, as to which RCP you think we are on now?
It is not a future question, but where we have been.
Back in post #93, here was my original question,

Which RCP path do you think we are on?
RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, or RCP8.5?

 

[Threegoofs]

So I take it you refuse to give an answer, as to which RCP you think we are on now?
It is not a future question, but where we have been.
Back in post #93, here was my original question,

I don't think I could be clearer!

It's like asking what your health will be with a scenario of either chronic alcoholism and a fast food diet or a vegan non-sedentary lifestyle- but not knowing which one.

 

[longview]

I don't think I could be clearer!

It's like asking what your health will be with a scenario of either chronic alcoholism and a fast food diet or a vegan non-sedentary lifestyle- but not knowing which one.

The point is that your hypocrisy is showing.
On the one hand you say with smug certainty, how if we do not take corrective action now, we will warm to the IPCC projected 3 °C,
while on the other hand you say we cannot know what the future will hold!
Do you even know which RCP the IPCC says will lead to a warming of 3 °C?

 

[Threegoofs]

The point is that your hypocrisy is showing.
On the one hand you say with smug certainty, how if we do not take corrective action now, we will warm to the IPCC projected 3 °C,
while on the other hand you say we cannot know what the future will hold!
Do you even know which RCP the IPCC says will lead to a warming of 3 °C?

What?

3 degrees is the midpoint of the range for temp increase for CO2 doubling.

The RCP projections will give you temp increases out to 2100 - and assume emissions peaks in different years - which is why its just silliness (or abject ignorance, as we may be discovering here) that one could determine which path we are on without knowing when peak emissions will be. I think we can probably eliminate peak emissions for this decade, so RCP 2.5 is out, and I dont think we'll continue to emit throughout 2100 at peak, so RCP 8.5 is doubtful. But assuming we peak somewhere between 2040 and 2080 (RCP 4.5 and 6) , the temperature increase by 2100 will be around 2 degrees C from current temps, or almost 3 degrees from early 20th century temperatures, which would correlate to a 3 degree rise with doubling CO2 levels.

Remember, that temp rise is five degrees F on average - thats undoubtedly a massive rise and will be quite disruptive to animal and plant species worldwide. And theres a good chance those estimates may be too low.

Now please dont confuse CO2 doubling temp estimates with RCP estimates again, now that you know the difference.

As for your criticism that I say smugly that I dont know what the consequences will be since I dont know what the future will hold, that makes as much sense as me telling you to jump off a cliff because - hey- you cant see in the future! Maybe a branch will break your fall, or a giant eagle will come swoop you out of the sky and rescue you!

 

[longview]

What?

3 degrees is the midpoint of the range for temp increase for CO2 doubling.

The RCP projections will give you temp increases out to 2100 - and assume emissions peaks in different years - which is why its just silliness (or abject ignorance, as we may be discovering here) that one could determine which path we are on without knowing when peak emissions will be. I think we can probably eliminate peak emissions for this decade, so RCP 2.5 is out, and I dont think we'll continue to emit throughout 2100 at peak, so RCP 8.5 is doubtful. But assuming we peak somewhere between 2040 and 2080 (RCP 4.5 and 6) , the temperature increase by 2100 will be around 2 degrees C from current temps, or almost 3 degrees from early 20th century temperatures, which would correlate to a 3 degree rise with doubling CO2 levels.

Remember, that temp rise is five degrees F on average - thats undoubtedly a massive rise and will be quite disruptive to animal and plant species worldwide. And theres a good chance those estimates may be too low.

Now please dont confuse CO2 doubling temp estimates with RCP estimates again, now that you know the difference.

As for your criticism that I say smugly that I dont know what the consequences will be since I dont know what the future will hold, that makes as much sense as me telling you to jump off a cliff because - hey- you cant see in the future! Maybe a branch will break your fall, or a giant eagle will come swoop you out of the sky and rescue you!

See was that so difficult to admit that you had some preconceived notion of which RCP we were on?
As for the catastrophic prediction, they are still predicated on amplified feedbacks which have not been verified.
In addition, approximately 60 to 75% of all warming appears to be in nighttime lows T-Min.
The Asymmetry extends beyond the diurnal temperatures, to seasonal temperatures, with the majority of the warming
occurring in the cooler months. Besides all of that, oil will price itself out of the market within the next decade or less,
(without any government involvement).

 

[Threegoofs]

See was that so difficult to admit that you had some preconceived notion of which RCP we were on?
As for the catastrophic prediction, they are still predicated on amplified feedbacks which have not been verified.
In addition, approximately 60 to 75% of all warming appears to be in nighttime lows T-Min.
The Asymmetry extends beyond the diurnal temperatures, to seasonal temperatures, with the majority of the warming
occurring in the cooler months. Besides all of that, oil will price itself out of the market within the next decade or less,
(without any government involvement).

WTF?

I explain and you STILL don't get it.