Why Our Brains Weren't Made To Deal With Climate Change

[Colin Norris]

The climate is changing, it is always changing, the question is,
how much of the observed change is attributable to Human activity.
They make that determination by subtracting off all the other known causes of warming, and cooling,
and attributing what remains to increases in greenhouse gasses.
There is no conspiracy, just a large subjective range of simulated climate outputs, based on assumed inputs.
The problem with this is the models do not line up with the observations.
The projections based on the observed data, show the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 to be lower, between 1 and 2C, as opposed to 3C.
We can discuss the evidence in detail if you are interested?

I can see your one of the deniers and use lots of paraphernalia to justify it.
If that cements your position, knock yourself out.

 

[longview]

I can see your one of the deniers and use lots of paraphernalia to justify it.
If that cements your position, knock yourself out.

Science is not paraphernalia! The estimates of how much warming we can expect from added CO2 is all over the place,
and largely depends on the assumptions used in the simulations.
The projections based on actual observed data are much lower.
Energy budget constraints on climate response
Keep in mind that estimates based on TCR are much closer to reality.

The best estimate of TCR based on observations of the most recent decade is 1.3 °C (0.9–2.0 °C; dark red, Fig. 1b).

Now this article is from a group of the lead authors of the science section of the last IPCC report AR5.
You ether argue based on the data, or you argue based on opinion, I choose data!

 

[Colin Norris]

Science is not paraphernalia! The estimates of how much warming we can expect from added CO2 is all over the place,
and largely depends on the assumptions used in the simulations.
The projections based on actual observed data are much lower.
Energy budget constraints on climate response
Keep in mind that estimates based on TCR are much closer to reality.

Now this article is from a group of the lead authors of the science section of the last IPCC report AR5.
You ether argue based on the data, or you argue based on opinion, I choose data!

As I said, knock your self out.

 

[longview]

As I said, knock your self out.

So you have no interest in looking at any of the facts related to our climate's sensitivity to added CO2?
What are you doing here?

 

[Colin Norris]

So you have no interest in looking at any of the facts related to our climate's sensitivity to added CO2?
What are you doing here?

I didn't see any questionaire to draft my application into positions.

I won't be leaving at your request or hope.
I'll choose that without your arrogant influence.

 

[longview]

I didn't see any questionaire to draft my application into positions.

I won't be leaving at your request or hope.
I'll choose that without your arrogant influence.

If you actually wanted to discuss the science of human caused climate change, then you would understand that there was no arrogance in my statements!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I didn't see any questionaire to draft my application into positions.

I won't be leaving at your request or hope.
I'll choose that without your arrogant influence.

You're just being an irritant, and not adding to the debate.

 

[Colin Norris]

You're just being an irritant, and not adding to the debate.

There is nothing to add to the debate..
If your looking for someone to discuss you mathematical equations, go for your life.
None if it will solve the problem.
I don't care what someone believes as long as they have valid reasons. People who deny CC have none but conspiracies.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is nothing to add to the debate..
If your looking for someone to discuss you mathematical equations, go for your life.
None if it will solve the problem.
I don't care what someone believes as long as they have valid reasons. People who deny CC have none but conspiracies.

Why are you here if you aren't going to engage in a productive debate?

Do you like being an irritant?

 

[Colin Norris]

Why are you here if you aren't going to engage in a productive debate?

Do you like being an irritant?

There is nothing to debate.
No one will ever change my opinion including you. You seem upset because I've challenged you. I'd get used to it if I were you. I'm going nowhere.

It appears I'm irritating you more than anything.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is nothing to debate.
No one will ever change my opinion including you. You seem upset because I've challenged you. I'd get used to it if I were you. I'm going nowhere.

It appears I'm irritating you more than anything.

Then leave.

 

[Colin Norris]

Then leave.

No. You leave. You will not force me to go anywhere.
Accept it. You are a climate denier.
You won't go to hell for it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No. You leave. You will not force me to go anywhere.
Accept it. You are a climate denier.
You won't go to hell for it.

You're just a bully.

 

[watsup]

Why are you here if you aren't going to engage in a productive debate?

Do you like being an irritant?

More psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

You're just a bully.

And yet more psychological projection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Buzz]

Science is not paraphernalia! The estimates of how much warming we can expect from added CO2 is all over the place,
and largely depends on the assumptions used in the simulations.
The projections based on actual observed data are much lower.
Energy budget constraints on climate response
Keep in mind that estimates based on TCR are much closer to reality.

Now this article is from a group of the lead authors of the science section of the last IPCC report AR5.
You ether argue based on the data, or you argue based on opinion, I choose data!

Oh!?!? Back to cherry-picking Otto again... are we?? And just a few weeks ago you were declaring all studies based on ECS as unreliable since they calculate warming based on a doubling of CO2 concentration. Unfortunately for you AR6 now cites numerous newer and better studies that give results that are much higher than what you want to acknowledge. And you have, of course, switched to citing the TCR numbers even though they are even less likely to become reality than the ECS number.

You really do have no shame.

 

[Colin Norris]

You're just a bully.

So my democratic right to express an opinion is ignorantly interpreted by you as being a bully yet on two occassions you have implied I should leave?????

Who's appearing the bully now do you think?

 

[longview]

Oh!?!? Back to cherry-picking Otto again... are we?? And just a few weeks ago you were declaring all studies based on ECS as unreliable since they calculate warming based on a doubling of CO2 concentration. Unfortunately for you AR6 now cites numerous newer and better studies that give results that are much higher than what you want to acknowledge. And you have, of course, switched to citing the TCR numbers even though they are even less likely to become reality than the ECS number.

You really do have no shame.

Follow the point, last week we were discussing that ECS (which is how the climate responds to an abrupt increase in the CO2 level,
does not match the annual emission increases observed since 1960. TCR while still not matching the observations, is much closer to what has been observed.
TCR combined with the maximum warming studies, show that a 1% annual increase would cause CO2 to double by year 70, but the maximum occur by year 80.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

For a 100 GtC pulse of CO2 released into the atmosphere with a background CO2 concentration of 389 ppm,
R&C found the median time between an emission and maximum warming to be 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.

The question of how the climate will respond to added CO2, is tied to how that CO2 is released, in one giant doubling pulse, or in annual steps?
Because the climate will never actually get one giant doubling pulse of CO2, we do not need to be concerned with models showing that!
What the climate is getting is annual increases of between 2 and 3 ppm, or a 0.7% annual increase. (So the 1% annual increase of TCR is much closer to reality!)

This get us back to the graph in the cited paper above,

The Y axes scale is Temperature Anomaly(K/1000 GtC), so the 2 shown for the maximum warming for the 100GtC pulse,
would be 1/10 of 2 or .2K, or 0.2C. for a roughly 47 ppm increase in the CO2 level, taken out to 1000 years.
If we look at that in context of the increases in CO2 since 280 ppm, the increase of 135 ppm should add less that .6C when fully equalized in a decade!

 

[Buzz]

Follow the point, last week we were discussing that ECS (which is how the climate responds to an abrupt increase in the CO2 level,
does not match the annual emission increases observed since 1960. TCR while still not matching the observations, is much closer to what has been observed.
TCR combined with the maximum warming studies, show that a 1% annual increase would cause CO2 to double by year 70, but the maximum occur by year 80.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

The question of how the climate will respond to added CO2, is tied to how that CO2 is released, in one giant doubling pulse, or in annual steps?
Because the climate will never actually get one giant doubling pulse of CO2, we do not need to be concerned with models showing that!
What the climate is getting is annual increases of between 2 and 3 ppm, or a 0.7% annual increase. (So the 1% annual increase of TCR is much closer to reality!)

This get us back to the graph in the cited paper above,

The Y axes scale is Temperature Anomaly(K/1000 GtC), so the 2 shown for the maximum warming for the 100GtC pulse,
would be 1/10 of 2 or .2K, or 0.2C. for a roughly 47 ppm increase in the CO2 level, taken out to 1000 years.
If we look at that in context of the increases in CO2 since 280 ppm, the increase of 135 ppm should add less that .6C when fully equalized in a decade!

Damn, long... you are so full of it. AR6 came out and I pointed out that it contains numerous studies of ECS and TCR that showed higher numbers than what you want to admit. So in an effort to discredit all those studies you started falsely claiming that they all can't be trusted because some were models based on an instantaneous doubling of CO2 even though many were not. And not only are you both ignoring all the better and more recent studies published in the latest IPCC report but you also resorting to your old trick of cherry-picking 1 older study that gives the result you want.

So... what is the closest to reality? A study of ECS that is based on current increases in CO2 or one on TCR that is based on increases that are more than the actual increases?

 

[longview]

Damn, long... you are so full of it. AR6 came out and I pointed out that it contains numerous studies of ECS and TCR that showed higher numbers than what you want to admit. So in an effort to discredit all those studies you started falsely claiming that they all can't be trusted because some were models based on an instantaneous doubling of CO2 even though many were not. And not only are you both ignoring all the better and more recent studies published in the latest IPCC report but you also resorting to your old trick of cherry-picking 1 older study that gives the result you want.

So... what is the closest to reality? A study of ECS that is based on current increases in CO2 or one on TCR that is based on increases that are more than the actual increases?

Buzz, The loss of the low end of ECS made me question if ECS was a valid representation of how the future climate would respond.
The papers about maximum warming and how it responds to the pulse size, confirmed to me that ECS was not the proper measure.
and you never seemed to find an ECS definition that stated a time over which the doubling happened, which leaves only an abrupt doubling.
TCR while higher than current emissions, is clearly a closer simulation to what has been happening that ECS, as a abrupt doubling of the CO2 level is not happening.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, The loss of the low end of ECS made me question if ECS was a valid representation of how the future climate would respond.
The papers about maximum warming and how it responds to the pulse size, confirmed to me that ECS was not the proper measure.
and you never seemed to find an ECS definition that stated a time over which the doubling happened, which leaves only an abrupt doubling.
TCR while higher than current emissions, is clearly a closer simulation to what has been happening that ECS, as a abrupt doubling of the CO2 level is not happening.

This is all just more denialist BS.

There were two definitions in AR6 for ECS. And they didn't specify when that doubling will happen because it hasn't happened yet. Just like there are several studies that don't specify when doubling happens because it hasn't happened yet.

Your arguments are based on a logical fallacy.

 

[longview]

This is all just more denialist BS.

There were two definitions in AR6 for ECS. And they didn't specify when that doubling will happen because it hasn't happened yet. Just like there are several studies that don't specify when doubling happens because it hasn't happened yet.

Your arguments are based on a logical fallacy.

Buzz, you need to read the definitions again! ECS is an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level!

 

[Lord of Planar]

This is all just more denialist BS.

Yep.

Result to name-calling when you are losing.

Typical.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This is all just more denialist BS.

There were two definitions in AR6 for ECS. And they didn't specify when that doubling will happen because it hasn't happened yet. Just like there are several studies that don't specify when doubling happens because it hasn't happened yet.

Your arguments are based on a logical fallacy.

Levels lower than and higher than are easily extrapolated if you know math.

 

[watsup]

Buzz, you need to read the definitions again! ECS is an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level!

Why do you keep telling that obvious lie?