Climate change

[PassedOut]

That was in cave man times as far as technology is concerned but I think the fundamental point is still right.The trick is to use technology in a useful way but not to elevate it to god-like status. Computer models can help. Don't bet the house, or the planet, on them being always right. And don't dismiss them as useless because they are sometimes wrong, or sometimes off by a bit.

Yes. Even with the powerful models, weather forecasts are not always correct, but there's no doubt that they are much, much better now than they were years ago.

[Al_U_Card]

Yes. Even with the powerful models, weather forecasts are not always correct, but there's no doubt that they are much, much better now than they were years ago.

Yet they must be reinitialized every 6 hours to give a forecast that is somewhat better than mostly wrong after a couple of days. And weather to come in 50 years can be believed???

[Al_U_Card]

Of course, none of this does anything to explain the shifts in plant heartiness zones across the world...

Plant hardiness does vary according to regional temperatures so in a warming world, they will change accordingly. OTOH, higher CO2 levels have been shown to increase drought resistance through reduced stomatal transpiration. So that is one of the benefits.

[hrothgar]

Plant hardiness does vary according to regional temperatures so in a warming world, they will change accordingly. OTOH, higher CO2 levels have been shown to increase drought resistance through reduced stomatal transpiration. So that is one of the benefits.

 

So you admit that your arguments about heat islands in airports throwing off temperature measurements is bullshiite, then...

Right?

 

Because one we have settled that issue I am happy to discuss the latest piece of crap that you're selling.

[johnu]

Yet they must be reinitialized every 6 hours to give a forecast that is somewhat better than mostly wrong after a couple of days. And weather to come in 50 years can be believed???

 

Hmmm, I would have thought that an expert such yourself would not be confused by difference between weather and climate. B-)

[Winstonm]

From this article, by the end of the century we will be right back from whence we began.

 

This is what you get in an ancient atmosphere with around 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide. If this number sounds familiar, 1,000 ppm of CO2 is around what humanity is on pace to reach by the end of this century. That should be mildly concerning.

 

“You put more CO2 in the atmosphere and you get more warming, that’s just super-simple physics that we figured out in the 19th century,” says David Naafs, an organic geochemist at the University of Bristol. “But exactly how much it will warm by the end of the century, we don’t know. Based on our research of these ancient climates, though, it’s probably more than we thought.”

[Al_U_Card]

From this article, by the end of the century we will be right back from whence we began.

Couldn't be less, THAT wouldn't be alarming enough! Seems to me the 5 or 6 thousand ppm coincided with our Temps +- 4 degrees C Within the last 10k years we had +2C and that was with 250 ppm.... go figure.... please.

[Winstonm]

Couldn't be less, THAT wouldn't be alarming enough! Seems to me the 5 or 6 thousand ppm coincided with our Temps +- 4 degrees C Within the last 10k years we had +2C and that was with 250 ppm.... go figure.... please.

 

Did you even read the quote or are simply programmed to deny? Here, again, is what the man said.

 

“You put more CO2 in the atmosphere and you get more warming, that’s just super-simple physics that we figured out in the 19th century,” says David Naafs, an organic geochemist at the University of Bristol. “But exactly how much it will warm by the end of the century, we don’t know."

 

He doesn't sound alarmist at all - he sounds honest.

[Al_U_Card]

Did you even read the quote or are simply programmed to deny? Here, again, is what the man said.

 

 

 

He doesn't sound alarmist at all - he sounds honest.

Perhaps another trap to fall into? Saying whether it will warm is honest. They expect it to warm, yes, like they did during the 20 years of the hiatus. Or drop during the 30 years prior to the 1970s? They know exactly what they mean and you should be aware of all the weasel-words and innuendo. I don't deny anything factual or observed. The future is harder to accurately predict than they let on.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps another trap to fall into? Saying whether it will warm is honest. They expect it to warm, yes, like they did during the 20 years of the hiatus. Or drop during the 30 years prior to the 1970s? They know exactly what they mean and you should be aware of all the weasel-words and innuendo. I don't deny anything factual or observed. The fiture is harder to accurately predict than they let on.

 

Are you back to completely denying warming secondary to increases in CO2?

[Al_U_Card]

Are you back to completely denying warming secondary to increases in CO2?

The best science (actually measured values) points to an ECS of 1.1 to 1.5 C. This is hardly worrisome and natural factors could override that change over the next century. Spend all you want, uselessly, on flights of fancy but don't expect the real science to support that decision. Once you see the entire story, the folly becomes obvious.

[PassedOut]

The best science (actually measured values) points to an ECS of 1.1 to 1.5 C.

LOL. There are no "actually measured values" from the future.

:rolleyes:

[Al_U_Card]

LOL. There are no "actually measured values" from the future.

:rolleyes:

Indeed. The referenced, peer-reviewed studies have all been posted here and are derived from actual temperature changes over time as well as [CO2]. Nothing to do with supposed feedback effects, just the actual ones.

[PassedOut]

The best science (actually measured values) points to an ECS of 1.1 to 1.5 C. This is hardly worrisome and natural factors could override that change over the next century. Spend all you want, uselessly, on flights of fancy but don't expect the real science to support that decision. Once you see the entire story, the folly becomes obvious.

LOL. There are no "actually measured values" from the future.

:rolleyes:

Indeed. The referenced, peer-reviewed studies have all been posted here and are derived from actual temperature changes over time as well as [CO2]. Nothing to do with supposed feedback effects, just the actual ones.

No one knows yet what the actual ECS will turn out to be, so we are all dependent upon models that use existing data to project a future ECS value. All of the climate models plug in the "actually measured values" used in calculating their projections. Your claim that the "best science" points to a low-end ECS is nothing more than a claim that the model you prefer is "best" in some way, but you neither describe that model nor offer any justification for that assertion. Nor have you provided any reason to suppose that you'd be capable of doing so. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

Indeed, scientists who do know what they are doing are closing in on a better estimate, and it is higher than the values that your secret model "points to."

 

New study reduces uncertainty for climate sensitivity

 

The latest assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that climate sensitivity has a likely range of 1.5 to 4.5C.

 

The new study, published in Nature, refines this estimate to 2.8C, with a corresponding range of 2.2 to 3.4C. If correct, the new estimates could reduce the uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity by 60%.

 

The narrower range suggests that global temperature rise is going to shoot over 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the lead author tells Carbon Brief, but we might be able to avoid 2C. Meeting either limit will likely require negative emissions technologies that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, he says.

 

The new estimate is another brick in the wall of scientists understanding of climate sensitivity, another scientist tells Carbon Brief, and the best-informed views will be reached by multiple lines of evidence.

So it looks like we'll avoid hitting the 4+C extreme on the high side, but we'll have to make a strong effort to keep the rise to around 2C.

 

Whatever model that you are using to "point to" a low ECS is way off the mark.

[Al_U_Card]

No one knows yet what the actual ECS will turn out to be, so we are all dependent upon models that use existing data to project a future ECS value. All of the climate models plug in the "actually measured values" used in calculating their projections. Your claim that the "best science" points to a low-end ECS is nothing more than a claim that the model you prefer is "best" in some way, but you neither describe that model nor offer any justification for that assertion. Nor have you provided any reason to suppose that you'd be capable of doing so. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

Indeed, scientists who do know what they are doing are closing in on a better estimate, and it is higher than the values that your secret model "points to."

 

New study ‘reduces uncertainty’ for climate sensitivity

 

 

So it looks like we'll avoid hitting the 4+C extreme on the high side, but we'll have to make a strong effort to keep the rise to around 2C.

 

Whatever model that you are using to "point to" a low ECS is way off the mark.

It certainly disagrees with the IPCC model-based estimates, pretty much like how those same models over-estimate the warming so far?

 

Granted, the energy-balance "model" approaches are much lower, but they are relatively consistent, no matter what time period is used to calculate them, including periods of GT rise, fall or even hiatus.

 

The paper (hereafter, LC18) addresses a range of concerns that have been raised about climate sensitivity estimates derived using energy balance models. We provide estimates of ECS and TCR based on a globally-complete infilled version of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature dataset as well as estimates based on HadCRUT4 itself.[v] Table 1 gives the ECS and TCR estimates for the four base period – final period combinations used.

 

[johnu]

There is a typical false equivalence that is going on in this thread. If the CO2 global warming believers are wrong, the world will have spent a lot of money and ended up with cleaner air (and water) which in itself is not a bad thing. If the CO2 climate change deniers are wrong, the world will be profoundly changed for the worse and there may be no recovery.

 

Even if the scientific world was split 50%-50%, reducing CO2 (and accompanying pollutants) to prevent further global warming should get a huge benefit of the doubt. But it's not 50-50. It's probably 98% to 2%.

[johnu]

Jimmy Kimmel tries to explain climate change in a way that Dennison could relate to:

 

Jimmy Kimmel Dumbs Down Climate Change So Even Dennison Can Understand It

[Daniel1960]

There is a typical false equivalence that is going on in this thread. If the CO2 global warming believers are wrong, the world will have spent a lot of money and ended up with cleaner air (and water) which in itself is not a bad thing. If the CO2 climate change deniers are wrong, the world will be profoundly changed for the worse and there may be no recovery.

 

Even if the scientific world was split 50%-50%, reducing CO2 (and accompanying pollutants) to prevent further global warming should get a huge benefit of the doubt. But it's not 50-50. It's probably 98% to 2%.

 

Not exactly accurate. The world can reduce pollution and clean up the air without reducing CO2. Much of the western world has done this already. The assumption we must reduce CO2 in order to combat air pollution is a fallacy. Also, reducing CO2 does not guarantee cleaner air. These are two different issues, even though an indirect link occurs between them. It is not 98% to 2%, but closer to 50-50.

[johnu]

Not exactly accurate. The world can reduce pollution and clean up the air without reducing CO2. Much of the western world has done this already. The assumption we must reduce CO2 in order to combat air pollution is a fallacy. Also, reducing CO2 does not guarantee cleaner air. These are two different issues, even though an indirect link occurs between them. It is not 98% to 2%, but closer to 50-50.

 

But why reduce pollution without reducing CO2? Maybe some air pollution has been reduced but many areas of the world have very unhealthy air. And why reduce CO2 without reducing air pollution? Why not do both if you can?

 

Among reputable scientists and organizations, I'll go with my 98-2 estimate. Feel free to toss out your own numbers.

[Cyberyeti]

 

Among reputable scientists and organizations, I'll go with my 98-2 estimate. Feel free to toss out your own numbers.

 

Yup, among real scientists with relevant doctorates rather than people who are experts who learned everything from the internet it's certainly well above 80%. Take out the scientists directly funded by causes that would be impacted by CO2 reduction and 98% is probably not a mile off.

[ldrews]

There is a typical false equivalence that is going on in this thread. If the CO2 global warming believers are wrong, the world will have spent a lot of money and ended up with cleaner air (and water) which in itself is not a bad thing. If the CO2 climate change deniers are wrong, the world will be profoundly changed for the worse and there may be no recovery.

 

Even if the scientific world was split 50%-50%, reducing CO2 (and accompanying pollutants) to prevent further global warming should get a huge benefit of the doubt. But it's not 50-50. It's probably 98% to 2%.

 

This is just a form of Pascal's Wager: It is rational to believe in God because if God does not exist then no harm is done but if God does exist then you have gotten on the right side.

[Daniel1960]

But why reduce pollution without reducing CO2? Maybe some air pollution has been reduced but many areas of the world have very unhealthy air. And why reduce CO2 without reducing air pollution? Why not do both if you can?

 

Among reputable scientists and organizations, I'll go with my 98-2 estimate. Feel free to toss out your own numbers.

 

Reducing air pollution has certifiable health improvements. Therefore, the impetus exist to do so. If CO2 reduction is a side effect of reducing air pollution, then so be it.

 

According to the Doran study, which generated the oft-quoted 97% figure, 94% of scientists stated that they believed that temperatures had risen. That number was manipulated to the 97% figure, and then circulated to mean that they also believed that CO2 was the cause. Further reading into the study showed that only 67% believed that CO2 was the cause of the warming. I have not seen much change in the overall numbers since, so I will go with a roughly 2:1 ratio.

[PassedOut]

If the CO2 global warming believers are wrong, the world will have spent a lot of money and ended up with cleaner air (and water) which in itself is not a bad thing. If the CO2 climate change deniers are wrong, the world will be profoundly changed for the worse and there may be no recovery.

Evidently many people are willing to accept that risk on behalf of their children and grandchildren to avoid some personal inconvenience now. Trump voters have said loudly and clearly, "Character does not matter"

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmnnn. Climate science . consensus . nonsense.

 

Real science, theory,, hypothesis, measurement, analysis, conclusion.

 

CO2 at anywhere from 200 to 6000 ppm has been seen (based on the paleontology) to be mostly a source of greening when the planetary temperatures are not in icehouse conditions. Commercial greenhouses run around 1000 to 1500 ppm. Nuclear subs around 8000. A lot of the CO2 back in the distant past was converted into plant matter. The planet is now greening as CO2 increases. If the planet were to cool by, say, 0.8 deg. C over the next 30 years (the same as the rise over the last 120 years), and CO2 were to increase to 500 ppm. what would the sensible action be?

[Daniel1960]

Evidently many people are willing to accept that risk on behalf of their children and grandchildren to avoid some personal inconvenience now. Trump voters have said loudly and clearly, "Character does not matter"

 

Everything is a risk. While it may just be an inconvenience for some, it is a necessity for others. How much resources are people willing to divert from present day needs (food, shelter, energy, health, etc.) to mitigate a potential future problem? For the wealthy or elite, this is not a problem. For those living on the edge, this has major consequences. The voters may not have cared about character. But they certainly cared about their livelihood, and the effects it may have on their children and grandchildren.