Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Wikipedia really now that's rich. BTW about 200 pages ago I posted actual data from 2014 from NASA that shows the facts about the Antarctic ice sheet and the fact that it is growing in volume as a whole not loosing anything. The increases are more than offsetting the melt that is happening .

The MMGW cult doesn't recognize any fact or data that conflicts with their agenda.

NASA must be a group of pawns of the deniers for posting data that says MMGW isn't going to kill us next week.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Numerical simulations... reconstructions...model simulations...reconstructions..proxy reconstructions and model output...a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described.

computer models are NOT experiments


Apparently you still don't understand what "current science" means

You're killing me here. The climate isn't a germ that you're stabbing under a microscope, or pouring compound A into test tube B in your lab. Everything to do with a large and complex system like the climate involves testing our understanding by creating models, simplifications, simulations, reconstructions, computer models. ESPECIALLY when the goal is to try to make estimates and predictions for something that may irreversibly harm us.

Each model is developed and tested using historical data to see if they can accurately predict what is already known to have happened. Only then are they employed to make predictions about the future.

If you're trying to say that you don't think the current models are good enough for making predictions... well that's a sensible objection and worthy of discussion. Saying that their ongoing attempts to improve the models aren't "science" and testing the models aren't "experiments" ... that's nuts.

You also know that measurement techniques are improving and new data are being accumulated continuously. But that never makes the papers, til someone has found something interesting with the new data.

Until your time machine is working reliably, modelling and simulations are the best we've got.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

Heading back to post #1 again:

Why do you feel that humans living hundreds of years from now will be unable to move a few miles inland if their coastline changes, and will starve to death as a result of increased greening?

If all your predictions come true, the change (8 inches sea rise over a 100 year period) will hardly be noticed... even by those living at waterfront properties.

Sea level has about nothing to do with your post #1, but anyway...

If this was just about sea level rise and nothing else, then the mitigation will be as simple as you suggest. Assuming you're ok with the price tag and are willing to help out countries and populations who can't bear the cost.

But it isn't just about, or even mostly about sea level rise.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I only hope this thread is attracting a lot of viewers.

On the whole you seem like a decent guy. For your sake, I hope it isn't.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

People's minds are being changed

Republican Attitudes on Climate Change Thaw

Once again, a warmist confuses the fact that the planet has been warming since 1750 with the theory that this warming is caused by humans. If you had the slightest interest in honest science you all wouldn't keep making that mistake.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Once again, a warmist confuses the fact that the planet has been warming since 1750 with the theory that this warming is caused by humans. If you had the slightest interest in honest science you all wouldn't keep making that mistake.

So what does your honest science say about the cause of the warming.

Here is the history of anthropocentric carbon emissions from 1751 to 2013.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems

1751 3 million metric tons of carbon per annum.

2013 9776 million metric tons of carbon per annum.



To convert these estimates to units of carbon dioxide (CO2), simply multiply by 3.667.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So what does your honest science say about the cause of the warming.

Here is the history of anthropocentric carbon emissions from 1751 to 2013.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems

1751 3 million metric tons of carbon per annum.

2013 9776 million metric tons of carbon per annum.



To convert these estimates to units of carbon dioxide (CO2), simply multiply by 3.667.

It says that since it was warmer, or as warm during the 1000's and again during the Medieval Warming period that atmospheric CO2 is largely irrelevant to warming. It says that current concentrations are not producing the effects modeled, likely because the climate sensitivity values for the impact of doubling CO2 over a century is pretty far off base, as Hans von Storch and many others suggest. It says that instead of water vapor always being a positive forcing as expected, it can be a negative feedback depending on wind velocity, atmospheric pressure, etc. It says that if you take the last 70 years of tidal measurements from around the world and project the measured sea level rise over the next 85 years mean sea level will increase by about 1/2 inch. It says that based on ice core data, CO2 enrichment appears to be an effect and not a cause of warming. It says that the the total cost of efforts to reduce carbon agreed upon in Paris are vastly greater than the costs of mitigating the effect of continued carbon growth portrayed by even the most extreme of warmist scare stories. It says that based on prior solar cycles, we may be entering another Maunder Minimum scenario that will make us all go out and buy a 57 Chev to try to increase carbon outputs in the hope they will forestall another mini ice age, as the President's science adviser says has already been happening.

Stepping out of physics and chemistry and switching to psychology, honest science says that when a group of people meet contrary data with ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and narcissistic arrogance, the science says you are dealing with small, closed minds coupled with possible personality disorders.

That's just a broad overview, mind you, but it covers the basics.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Stepping out of physics and chemistry and switching to psychology, honest science says that when a group of people meet contrary data with ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and narcissistic arrogance, the science says you are dealing with small, closed minds coupled with possible personality disorders.

That pretty much describes the whole history and structure of the AGW denial movement, (excepting the appeal to authority, unless it's to the few scientists who are also anti AGW) and the various attacks they've launched against climate science, scientists and the IPCC. I would say it's simply a matter of self-interest, politics or ignorance, and not necessarily a pathology.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

It says that since it was warmer, or as warm during the 1000's and again during the Medieval Warming period that atmospheric CO2 is largely irrelevant to warming. It says that current concentrations are not producing the effects modeled, likely because the climate sensitivity values for the impact of doubling CO2 over a century is pretty far off base, as Hans von Storch and many others suggest. It says that instead of water vapor always being a positive forcing as expected, it can be a negative feedback depending on wind velocity, atmospheric pressure, etc. It says that if you take the last 70 years of tidal measurements from around the world and project the measured sea level rise over the next 85 years mean sea level will increase by about 1/2 inch. It says that based on ice core data, CO2 enrichment appears to be an effect and not a cause of warming. It says that the the total cost of efforts to reduce carbon agreed upon in Paris are vastly greater than the costs of mitigating the effect of continued carbon growth portrayed by even the most extreme of warmist scare stories. It says that based on prior solar cycles, we may be entering another Maunder Minimum scenario that will make us all go out and buy a 57 Chev to try to increase carbon outputs in the hope they will forestall another mini ice age, as the President's science adviser says has already been happening.

Stepping out of physics and chemistry and switching to psychology, honest science says that when a group of people meet contrary data with ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and narcissistic arrogance, the science says you are dealing with small, closed minds coupled with possible personality disorders.

That's just a broad overview, mind you, but it covers the basics.

Citations, please.

I asked for the views of your honest science, not your views.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That pretty much describes the whole history and structure of the AGW denial movement, (excepting the appeal to authority, unless it's to the few scientists who are also anti AGW) and the various attacks they've launched against climate science, scientists and the IPCC. I would say it's simply a matter of self-interest, politics or ignorance, and not necessarily a pathology.

By not addressing the contrary data I provided but instead just engaging in the usual topic switching and ad hominems you prove my point.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Citations, please.

I asked for the views of your honest science, not your views.

I've asked for your views and honest science regarding human mobility, but you only respond with silly questions.

Again the question: Why won't people be able to move out of the way of extremely slow rising seawater levels over the next thousand years or so? They've always managed to do so for the past two to three thousand years of recorded history. Why not in the future?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Citations, please.

I asked for the views of your honest science, not your views.

Citations for each point made have already been provided more than once. Educating you is not something I am interested in. Either the Medieval warming period existed or it did not. You need a citation for that? CO2 during that time, or during the time Leif Erickson was grazing cattle in Greenland either was, or was not elevated. You need a citation for that? The IPCC models have failed to predict what has happened. You've been given a quote from an IPCC author for that. Vostok ice core data either suggests that CO2 enrichment follows warming or it doesn't. You need another citation for that? Visit the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level to get the data on the last 70 years of tidal measurements if you like. Need a URL, perhaps?

These aren't views, they are observations of data that is inconsistent with your religious belief in human caused catastrophe. Your ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, Mr. Potato Head avatar and self inflating credentials speak to the rest.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Citations, please.

I asked for the views of your honest science, not your views.

Well, Jack, this exemplifies your problem...

You give us skeptics all those links, which we take as homework assignments and go off and read and study...neglecting spring maintenance on our boats because this is such an important issue (according to alarmists, who believe we have to act NOW!!!! to do SOMETHING)...and try to understand the studies presented and the critiques of those studies...

...and then Delfin gives you a summary of science in a few areas that is inconsistent with the unending links you post (not to mention SailOar's, who seems to be apprenticing to you), science that, if you are paying attention to all of it instead of just the information that supports your view, you would be familiar with.

And you claim ignorance of it, and ask for "citations."

Your unfamiliarity with studies contrary to your view is telling.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

By not addressing the contrary data I provided but instead just engaging in the usual topic switching and ad hominems you prove my point.

I was directly responding to one of your frequent, sophomoric ad-hominems points. Hardly topic-switching.

Anyway, I'm not a climate scientist. Neither are you. If you think your spoon-fed insight is superior to that of most climate scientists, the IPCC and just about all western governments, you need to convince them, not me. And when they all finally admit that you're right, why then I will have no option but to agree that you are indeed right.

I have some respect for your courage to keep holding to your denier position, especially when so many fellow deniers have treated to a safer "skeptic" position.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have some respect for your courage to keep holding to your denier position, especially when so many fellow deniers have treated to a safer "skeptic" position.

What about those of us who have a "don't give a rats ass" position on climate change?

Do we get some respect.