[W: #839] Bad news: possible 10 foot sea rise within a decade

[Threegoofs]

As many times as I have said that assessment of me is wrong, it seems you guys are not smart enough to learn.

You see, I read the actual papers that the pundits you listen to, lie about. They lie about what the scientists actually say!

I’ve seen your ‘analysis’ of papers. And they’re often the opposite of the analysis put forth by the researchers of the article in interviews.

I have shown in the past, how they are wrong. They are media people. Not scientists.

You hold the absurd position that the NASA website doesn’t reflect what NASA scientists think. It’s adorable.

Bullshit. Again, I am showing the pundits wrong. Not the scientists.

Please source that. Like normal, you are making things up.

Michael Mann is the prof I’m referencing. I think you know where I’m going from there.

Yes, a joker who doesn't understand often gets a laugh from his misunderstanding.

I haven’t had multiple call out threads exclusively dedicated to laughing at me. Just sayin’

 

[Jack2aTee]

Miami Beach is not Miami!

Noted.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I’ve seen your ‘analysis’ of papers. And they’re often the opposite of the analysis put forth by the researchers of the article in interviews.

I may see a different result than implied, but it is never contrary to the data collected, nor does the author rule out my conclusion. Can you show us otherwise? There might be a rare example, where I have claimed a paper to be wrong, but outside of Comic Strip Cook, I can't think of any.

You hold the absurd position that the NASA website doesn’t reflect what NASA scientists think. It’s adorable.

Prove to me they do. The implied messages of that Climate dot NASA dot gov blog are often wrong, and written by non scientists.

Have you seen me disagree with other NASA sub sites?

Michael Mann is the prof I’m referencing. I think you know where I’m going from there.

Well, he is one of a rare few who flat out lie about our effects.

I haven’t had multiple call out threads exclusively dedicated to laughing at me. Just sayin’

And why does that metric matter?

 

[bluesmoke]

Why would I need to refute something I agree with? I agree that Human activity is likely the majority cause of warming since 1950!
My issue with catastrophic AGW, is that the observed data, does not support the mid to high end of the predictions. Science is about matching a theory with the observations, and the current predictions do not match!

So, you agree that it is extremely likely that most if not all of GW is caused by humans? You say "majority", which can be 51%.

The range given of predicted increase in GW to catastrophic levels is based on observed data by the IPCC that they consider more likely than not. That observed data does not match predictions 100% isn't ignored in determining the likelihood of catastrophic GW and is considered as what is most likely than other possibility. Again, you parse out one thing to negate the whole of GW and the possible event of catastrophic GW. I agree with the IPCC, not longview theory.

 

[longview]

So, you agree that it is extremely likely that most if not all of GW is caused by humans? You say "majority", which can be 51%.

The range given of predicted increase in GW to catastrophic levels is based on observed data by the IPCC that they consider more likely than not. That observed data does not match predictions 100% isn't ignored in determining the likelihood of catastrophic GW and is considered as what is most likely than other possibility. Again, you parse out one thing to negate the whole of GW and the possible event of catastrophic GW. I agree with the IPCC, not longview theory.

Because the IPCC's observed warming is 1.07°C, and Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 W m–2, then yes more
than half of the observed warming is likely from Human activity, (2.72 X .3)=0.816°C.
Actually the IPCC's predicted temperature range for ECS is based almost entirely on simulations not observations,
and poor assumption simulations at that.
If you agree with the IPCC, then which estimate do you agree with?
IPCC AR6 SPM
This one,

In the literature, units of °C per 1000 PgC (petagrams of carbon) are used, and the AR6 reports the TCRE likely range
as 1.0°C to 2.3°C per 1000 PgC in the underlying report, with a best estimate of 1.65°C

or this one?

Improved knowledge of climate processes, paleoclimate evidence and the response of the climate system to
increasing radiative forcing gives a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a narrower
range compared to AR5.

Both represent a different sensitivity to a doubling of the CO2 level over the pre industrial level.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Because the IPCC's observed warming is 1.07°C, and Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 W m–2, then yes more
than half of the observed warming is likely from Human activity, (2.72 X .3)=0.816°C.
Actually the IPCC's predicted temperature range for ECS is based almost entirely on simulations not observations,
and poor assumption simulations at that.
If you agree with the IPCC, then which estimate do you agree with?
IPCC AR6 SPM
This one,

or this one?

Both represent a different sensitivity to a doubling of the CO2 level over the pre industrial level.

It is really REALLY difficult for those of us who are not particularly trained in technical science, but who tend to look at our world from logical observation, to take the doomsday predictions seriously. How many of them have there been since the 1970s? Twenty, thirty, forty? And as each predicted date arrives and passes without incident, the scientists and climate religionists just shrug and set a new date.

Constantly moving goalposts are not conducive to inspiring confidence that the climate models, simulations, and such are to be trusted or even believe the scientists themselves really believe them. They are useful to keep the money flowing to them though.

 

[Threegoofs]

It is really REALLY difficult for those of us who are not particularly trained in technical science, but who tend to look at our world from logical observation, to take the doomsday predictions seriously. How many of them have there been since the 1970s? Twenty, thirty, forty? And as each predicted date arrives and passes without incident, the scientists and climate religionists just shrug and set a new date.

Constantly moving goalposts are not conducive to inspiring confidence that the climate models, simulations, and such are to be trusted or even believe the scientists themselves really believe them. They are useful to keep the money flowing to them though.

Fox News has trained you well.

The actual predictions are not moving constantly, they are updated every few years (in a report issued by the IPCC) based on new knowledge, and have been fairly accurate in the long run, when you look at the projections from the 90s.

 

[longview]

It is really REALLY difficult for those of us who are not particularly trained in technical science, but who tend to look at our world from logical observation, to take the doomsday predictions seriously. How many of them have there been since the 1970s? Twenty, thirty, forty? And as each predicted date arrives and passes without incident, the scientists and climate religionists just shrug and set a new date.

Constantly moving goalposts are not conducive to inspiring confidence that the climate models, simulations, and such are to be trusted or even believe the scientists themselves really believe them. They are useful to keep the money flowing to them though.

Even the IPCC presents the data, they just do it in a way the layman will simply roll their eyes at.
When we talk about simulations, they have equilibrium climate sensitivity ECS,
where in simulation, they abruptly double the CO2 level and then watch what happens.
This is not very useful, as the CO2 level can never abruptly double.
The second simulation TCR is where the CO2 level increases by 1% per year until it doubles.
IPCC AR6 talked about TCR, but does not give a best estimate.
In AR6 we have a new simulation TCRE, where the CO2 level is increased by 1% per year until 1000 GtC is accumulated.
The AR6 SPM lists this number as,

In the literature, units of °C per 1000 PgC (petagrams of carbon) are used, and the AR6 reports the
TCRE likely range as 1.0°C to 2.3°C per 1000 PgC in the underlying report, with a best estimate of 1.65°C

Now ECS is based on increasing the CO2 level by 280 ppm, so to look at TCRE in the same units, we have to convert
1000 GtC into ppm.
PPM to GtC

1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 GtC

so 1000 GtC is equal to 1000/2.13 = 469 ppm of CO2.
To find out how the 1.65°C for 469 ppm compares to the ECS of 3°C for 560 ppm,
we have to go back to the log curve, and use the 280 ppm reference.
280 ppm plus 469 ppm is 749 ppm, so to find the natural log multiplier,
we take the predicted warming 1.65°C/ln(749/280) =1.67, so 1.67 X ln(2) =1.16°C.

The alarmist may argue all they want, but unless they can show an error in the math,
this is what the IPCC says is the predicted 2XCO2 warming, IF the CO2 level is increased by 1% per year
until 1000 GtC is accumulated.

 

[Threegoofs]

Even the IPCC presents the data, they just do it in a way the layman will simply roll their eyes at.
When we talk about simulations, they have equilibrium climate sensitivity ECS,
where in simulation, they abruptly double the CO2 level and then watch what happens.
This is not very useful, as the CO2 level can never abruptly double.
The second simulation TCR is where the CO2 level increases by 1% per year until it doubles.
IPCC AR6 talked about TCR, but does not give a best estimate.
In AR6 we have a new simulation TCRE, where the CO2 level is increased by 1% per year until 1000 GtC is accumulated.
The AR6 SPM lists this number as,

Now ECS is based on increasing the CO2 level by 280 ppm, so to look at TCRE in the same units, we have to convert
1000 GtC into ppm.
PPM to GtC

so 1000 GtC is equal to 1000/2.13 = 469 ppm of CO2.
To find out how the 1.65°C for 469 ppm compares to the ECS of 3°C for 560 ppm,
we have to go back to the log curve, and use the 280 ppm reference.
280 ppm plus 469 ppm is 749 ppm, so to find the natural log multiplier,
we take the predicted warming 1.65°C/ln(749/280) =1.67, so 1.67 X ln(2) =1.16°C.

The alarmist may argue all they want, but unless they can show an error in the math,
this is what the IPCC says is the predicted 2XCO2 warming, IF the CO2 level is increased by 1% per year
until 1000 GtC is accumulated.

You should write this up and submit it to Nature. I’m sure LoP will be happy to co-author.

At least the reviewers will get a good laugh.

Always love guys who think they can disprove a hypothesis that has existed for decades with two paragraphs of napkin math.

 

[longview]

You should write this up and submit it to Nature. I’m sure LoP will be happy to co-author.

At least the reviewers will get a good laugh.

Always love guys who think they can disprove a hypothesis that has existed for decades with two paragraphs of napkin math.

Why, it is published in the IPCC AR6 SPM?

In the literature, units of °C per 1000 PgC (petagrams of carbon) are used, and the AR6 reports the
TCRE likely range as 1.0°C to 2.3°C per 1000 PgC in the underlying report, with a best estimate of 1.65°

Can you show an error in my math?

 

[Middleground]

The weather on the planet has always changed.

That is the most asinine argument. Seriously, is this all you have to offer in this debate? You know this logic is not worthy of people who have common sense and not take everything at face value, right?

Let me challenge you. Tell me why I think your logic is stupid. Or prove to me that current Climate Change is ****ing natural. Be critical.

 

[Middleground]

Even the IPCC presents the data, they just do it in a way the layman will simply roll their eyes at.
When we talk about simulations, they have equilibrium climate sensitivity ECS,
where in simulation, they abruptly double the CO2 level and then watch what happens.
This is not very useful, as the CO2 level can never abruptly double.
The second simulation TCR is where the CO2 level increases by 1% per year until it doubles.
IPCC AR6 talked about TCR, but does not give a best estimate.
In AR6 we have a new simulation TCRE, where the CO2 level is increased by 1% per year until 1000 GtC is accumulated.
The AR6 SPM lists this number as,

Now ECS is based on increasing the CO2 level by 280 ppm, so to look at TCRE in the same units, we have to convert
1000 GtC into ppm.
PPM to GtC

so 1000 GtC is equal to 1000/2.13 = 469 ppm of CO2.
To find out how the 1.65°C for 469 ppm compares to the ECS of 3°C for 560 ppm,
we have to go back to the log curve, and use the 280 ppm reference.
280 ppm plus 469 ppm is 749 ppm, so to find the natural log multiplier,
we take the predicted warming 1.65°C/ln(749/280) =1.67, so 1.67 X ln(2) =1.16°C.

The alarmist may argue all they want, but unless they can show an error in the math,
this is what the IPCC says is the predicted 2XCO2 warming, IF the CO2 level is increased by 1% per year
until 1000 GtC is accumulated.

This is denier vomit. How many scientific degrees do you have?

 

[longview]

This is denier vomit. How many scientific degrees do you have?

Can you show an error in the math?

 

[Middleground]

Can you show an error in the math?

I can't. But I am 1000% positive a newbie scientist can. Thing about science is that there are so many factors to weight. Factors that you have no ****ing idea about but pretend to know.

 

[longview]

I can't. But I am 1000% positive a newbie scientist can. Thing about science is that there are so many factors to weight. Factors that you have no ****ing idea about but pretend to know.

What I have posted stands, until someone can show there is an error in the math!

 

[AlbqOwl]

Even the IPCC presents the data, they just do it in a way the layman will simply roll their eyes at.
When we talk about simulations, they have equilibrium climate sensitivity ECS,
where in simulation, they abruptly double the CO2 level and then watch what happens.
This is not very useful, as the CO2 level can never abruptly double.
The second simulation TCR is where the CO2 level increases by 1% per year until it doubles.
IPCC AR6 talked about TCR, but does not give a best estimate.
In AR6 we have a new simulation TCRE, where the CO2 level is increased by 1% per year until 1000 GtC is accumulated.
The AR6 SPM lists this number as,

Now ECS is based on increasing the CO2 level by 280 ppm, so to look at TCRE in the same units, we have to convert
1000 GtC into ppm.
PPM to GtC

so 1000 GtC is equal to 1000/2.13 = 469 ppm of CO2.
To find out how the 1.65°C for 469 ppm compares to the ECS of 3°C for 560 ppm,
we have to go back to the log curve, and use the 280 ppm reference.
280 ppm plus 469 ppm is 749 ppm, so to find the natural log multiplier,
we take the predicted warming 1.65°C/ln(749/280) =1.67, so 1.67 X ln(2) =1.16°C.

The alarmist may argue all they want, but unless they can show an error in the math,
this is what the IPCC says is the predicted 2XCO2 warming, IF the CO2 level is increased by 1% per year
until 1000 GtC is accumulated.

You understand all that better than I do. I do understand when they miss the mark with their predictions despite the pages of math that look like your post , and never say 'oops' but just push the goal post to a new future point.

The polar bears should be essentially extinct by now. They aren't. They are thriving so well some worry about over population.

The arctic icecap and glaciers should be pretty much gone by now. They aren't.

Several coastal cities should be at least partly under water by now. They aren't.

We should have more deadly hurricanes and tornadoes these days. Not happening.

Nor do those climate 'experts' live their lives as if they believe their own predictions. They don't video conference but jet all over the world to get together. They don't seem to go for 'green energy' in their homes or vehicles any more than the average citizen. Many bought new homes in coastal areas. How seriously are THEY taking their own predictions?

 

[Threegoofs]

What I have posted stands, until someone can show there is an error in the math!

So why don’t you submit it to Nature and see how it goes?

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL.

Fox News did make those predictions. But scientists didn’t.

 

[longview]

So why don’t you submit it to Nature and see how it goes?

Again, because it is already published in the IPCC AR6 SPM, it is not new art, and would not be published.
The numbers are there for anyone to see, convert them for yourself, and show us if you come up with something different.

 

[longview]

LOL.

Fox News did make those predictions. But scientists didn’t.

I do not know if Fox predicted Trump would win, but if they did,
then they would be approaching the accuracy of many of the AGW predictions.

 

[Threegoofs]

Again, because it is already published in the IPCC AR6 SPM, it is not new art, and would not be published.
The numbers are there for anyone to see, convert them for yourself, and show us if you come up with something different.

Weird how their conclusions differ so much.

Oh wait. Not weird. You started with a conclusion and did napkin math to reach it.

Yanno…the opposite of science.

 

[longview]

Weird how their conclusions differ so much.

Oh wait. Not weird. You started with a conclusion and did napkin math to reach it.

Yanno…the opposite of science.

how would you know their conclusions differ, have you done the math to show what
the IPCC AR6 SPM 2XCO2 warming is for TCRE?

 

[Threegoofs]

how would you know their conclusions differ, have you done the math to show what
the IPCC AR6 SPM 2XCO2 warming is for TCRE?

You know you don’t need math to read, right?

 

[Middleground]

What I have posted stands, until someone can show there is an error in the math!

Science does not start with a conclusion.

 

[longview]

You know you don’t need math to read, right?

But you need math to convert 1000 GtC equals 1.65°C of warming,
into how much warming would result from an increase of 280 ppm, and to be assured of your results.
I am, which is why I asked you to point out any error you could find,
so ether you are not up to the task, or you could not find any error, and do not want to admit that I am correct
and the IPCC estimate for 2XCO2 for TCRE is in fact 1.16°C.