Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[sailorboy1]

time to buy up some future beach property

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

In your denunciation of these highly credentialed scientists, L-E

Lemme stop you right there. I am not "denouncing" these two scientists or making any criticism of their work, I am criticizing one part of a platform that they have allegedly endorsed.

Carry on.

...you apparently forgot to read the critical qualifier, namely that renewable fuels are not now economically sustainable "with present or near-term technology." What is it about the statement you don't approve of? The obvious truth of it, the fact that it was said, or maybe who was saying it?

It's a stupid declaration, especially with the qualifiers. First, it's an assertion against something that's not being claimed. NOBODY is claiming that present or near-term renewables technology is now economically sustainable. Nobody. That's why alternatives requires support and subsidization, so that the better technology is developed. Duh.

Secondly, the breathtaking hubris of WE DENY, especially on this declaration. Think of how it's usually used: WE DENY the earth revolves around the sun. WE DENY that evolution is a thing. WE DENY that AGW exists... you get the idea.

If it's the latter (as I strongly suspect) [Bzzzt! Wrong!], then that sorta runs contrary to your admonitions for us not to beat up on the scientific community. Or do you think that Christy -- a former member of the IPCC -- and Spencer -- a former career NASA climatologist -- no longer qualify as "scientists" because they challenge the mainstream/party line?

I suspected you'd go there.

As I said at the outset ("Yes - I still think that science should be judged solely on its own merits") - I am quite content to accept their work as valid and informative. Same as Jack - if their scientific work has been vetted and published by the community, that's good enough for me, no matter what they get up to off-hours.

This is in fact the same concession I've been asking you to make for the (85%? 90%? 97%? 99%?) of the rest of the climate scientists, instead of scouring the Internet for any plausible excuse to diss them as scientists or discount their work.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

time to buy up some future beach property

Colorado?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Let me get out my running shoes, I hope I can outrun this tsunami.

I am skeptical .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am skeptical .

Ya see?! That wasn't that hard now, was it? Welcome aboard, shipmate!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No - it does affect their policy recommendations.

I accept their data.

You accept their data? You've made this assertion before but I didn't know what it meant then either. This is the same little merry-go-round you went through with Stu awhile back.

Does it mean:

a) You accept that the UAH sat-based data, taken by NASA's own satellites, is credible?

b) You accept that the data shows a significantly cooler "warming trend" (i.e. 0.4-0.5 deg. over what, 36 yrs.?) than the surface data & modeling over the same period of time?

c) You accept the credibility of the data, along with it showing less warming, but you -- like Mears -- believe the surface data is more reliable?

d) You acknowledge the disparity b'twn the two types of data sets, but you think the UAH data is inherently flawed because Christy & Spencer are wacko, right-wing Republican religious freaks who are trying to dissuade us from saving the planet and thus avoiding their God-ordained end of time?

e) You would rather only say that "you accept their data" and nothing more, but continue to use only the surface data and modeling to try and advance your personal agenda in a misleading way?

f) None of the above [but you must write in your own answer below].

Ya see, I didn't forget everything from high school, and I did show up once in awhile (but mostly only for quizzes & tests, and of course my weekly "motivational" talk with the Asst. Principal ).

But before you begin, and for bonus points on the quiz, what evidence do you have that Christy & Spencer's religious faith affects their policy recommendations?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You accept their data? You've made this assertion before but I didn't know what it meant then either. This is the same little merry-go-round you went through with Stu awhile back.

Does it mean:

a) You accept that the UAH sat-based data, taken by NASA's own satellites, is credible?

Yes, for the portion of the atmosphere that it measures, which is not where we live.

b) You accept that the data shows a significantly cooler "warming trend" (i.e. 0.4-0.5 deg. over what, 36 yrs.?) than the surface data & modeling over the same period of time?

Yes, see above. That is also in line with the prediction that the atmosphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

c) You accept the credibility of the data, along with it showing less warming, but you -- like Mears -- believe the surface data is more reliable?

It shows less air surface temperature increase which can be accounted for by ocean heat uptake, industrial aerosol production from Asia , more volcanic activity, etc..

d) You acknowledge the disparity b'twn the two types of data sets, but you think the UAH data is inherently flawed because Christy & Spencer are wacko, right-wing Republican religious freaks who are trying to dissuade us from saving the planet and thus avoiding their God-ordained end of time?

No, I have never said the data is flawed.

e) You would rather only say that "you accept their data" and nothing more, but continue to use only the surface data and modeling to try and advance your personal agenda in a misleading way?

Show us where I used surface data whether it is HADCrut 4 or something else. Cowtan and Way have shown that HADCrut 4 underestimates Arctic temperatures. Show us where I used modeling?

f) None of the above [but you must write in your own answer below].

Ya see, I didn't forget everything from high school, and I did show up once in awhile (but mostly only for quizzes & tests, and of course my weekly "motivational" talk with the Asst. Principal ).

But before you begin, and for bonus points on the quiz, what evidence do you have that Christy & Spencer's religious faith affects their policy recommendations?

Read The Cornwall Declaration. It is a political missive.

I was an Assistant Principal.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Lemme stop you right there. I am not "denouncing" these two scientists or making any criticism of their work, I am criticizing one part of a platform that they have allegedly endorsed.

Carry on.

OK good. I know you wouldn't want to avoid being held to the same standard you are demanding from everyone else.

It's a stupid declaration, especially with the qualifiers. First, it's an assertion against something that's not being claimed. NOBODY is claiming that present or near-term renewables technology is now economically sustainable. Nobody. That's why alternatives requires support and subsidization, so that the better technology is developed. Duh.

But is it a truthful and accurate statement? Or does that even matter? You didn't provide any context for why the statement was worded that way. For all we know they could have been exasperated from being in the midst of an argument with YOU.

Secondly, the breathtaking hubris of WE DENY, especially on this declaration. Think of how it's usually used: WE DENY the earth revolves around the sun. WE DENY that evolution is a thing. WE DENY that AGW exists... you get the idea.

"Breathtaking hubris?" OK, never mind. Yes I do get the idea. We DENY the validity of anyone who doesn't believe that WE know what's best when it comes to protecting the Earth. Is that it?

I suspected you'd go there.

As I said at the outset ("Yes - I still think that science should be judged solely on its own merits") - I am quite content to accept their work as valid and informative. Same as Jack - if their scientific work has been vetted and published by the community, that's good enough for me, no matter what they get up to off-hours.

So logically your comment MUST mean that you believe that the fundamental prerequisite for all of mainstream MMGW science -- namely the methodology for taking the Earth's temperature in a consistent, reliable way -- might be flawed because it contradicts Christy & Spencer's science. So good, we agree there are two ways to gather this all-critical data, and due to the disparity btwn. them they obviously can't both be right. That's all I was looking for, at least until some new scientific discoveries help reconcile or clarify.

This is in fact the same concession I've been asking you to make for the (85%? 90%? 97%? 99%?) of the rest of the climate scientists, instead of scouring the Internet for any plausible excuse to diss them as scientists or discount their work.

Concession? You mean that there exists seemingly valid scientific evidence that supports the mainstream position? I think I've been pretty clear I have no wherewithal for rejecting that evidence, only questioning it. Or should that no longer be permitted in your utopia?? My conclusion is that the science is unsettled at this point in time because there is too much scientific disagreement on how the baseline data is gathered, nothing more. You must agree with me if you can now see the validity of the sat-based temp data. Hopefully you at least understand that the reliability, consistency and accuracy of the temp data itself is indispensable to the science which relies on it.

And btw, which is it L-E? 85%? 90%? 97%? 99%? How about 51%, i.e. a "preponderance?" That sounds OK for a talking point too, worse-case scenario obviously. And it's a % of scientists who adhere to which of the many positions on GW out there?? I thought I had "scoured the internet" for a Wiki awhile back for you on this "highly relevant" sub-topic, but maybe like Google, that doesn't count. But then there's always the IPCC report, but that only helps if you read it.

[jackdale]

Interesting find

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maMEjDWgVmI

I have liked reading Hausfather's posts. I have not hear him speak before.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Wow.... A 3mm or 1/16 of an inch increase in ocean levels over the past year. Let me get out my running shoes, I hope I can outrun this tsunami.

3mm. = .118" or .002" less than 1/8". Not that I'm accusing you of minimizing...no...not me...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I was an Assistant Principal.

Yes, you've mentioned that, and I've mentioned my run-ins back in high school with the school disciplinarian. Nothing but respect for that career choice now, but back then I apparently required add'l. "inspiration" which the Ass't. Principal/Dean at my school was only too happy to provide.

Originally Posted by Exile
You accept their data? You've made this assertion before but I didn't know what it meant then either. This is the same little merry-go-round you went through with Stu awhile back.

Does it mean:

a) You accept that the UAH sat-based data, taken by NASA's own satellites, is credible?

Yes, for the portion of the atmosphere that it measures, which is not where we live.

OK, so it's the measuring of the Earth's temperature from the troposphere that is unreliable in your opinion, not the measurements themselves. Fair reading?

b) You accept that the data shows a significantly cooler "warming trend" (i.e. 0.4-0.5 deg. over what, 36 yrs.?) than the surface data & modeling over the same period of time?

Yes, see above. That is also in line with the prediction that the atmosphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

Yes, I understand, but not sure what that prediction has to do with the much lower rate of warming in the troposphere vs. on the surface over so many years.

c) You accept the credibility of the data, along with it showing less warming, but you -- like Mears -- believe the surface data is more reliable?

It shows less air surface temperature increase which can be accounted for by ocean heat uptake, industrial aerosol production from Asia , more volcanic activity, etc..

That was all explained in the Mears article, but also prefaced with some uncertainty. Aerosol production/volcanic activity is temporary, as you've pointed out many times before in an effort to discount unanticipated cooling trends. But here we have temp readings all the way back to 1979. Heat subduction(?) by the oceans is even more of an unknown, with a relatively recent theory discussing a correlation with higher trade wind activity. And of course there are are no shortages of critiques of surface readings, with all the localized and other difficult variables to compensate for. So while I understand that neither type of data is without flaws, it also doesn't seem like the validity of the sat data as a reliable tool for measuring temp trends has been debunked.

d) You acknowledge the disparity b'twn the two types of data sets, but you think the UAH data is inherently flawed because Christy & Spencer are wacko, right-wing Republican religious freaks who are trying to dissuade us from saving the planet and thus avoiding their God-ordained end of time?

No, I have never said the data is flawed.

OK, but you have been consistently insinuating that their religious beliefs are influencing outcomes in some illegitimate way. No sense arguing over semantics.

e) You would rather only say that "you accept their data" and nothing more, but continue to use only the surface data and modeling to try and advance your personal agenda in a misleading way?

Show us where I used surface data whether it is HADCrut 4 or something else. Cowtan and Way have shown that HADCrut 4 underestimates Arctic temperatures. Show us where I used modeling?

It is my understanding that the latest "adjusted" surface data is now closely in line with the modeling. If so, then the sat data shows a much less significant warming trend than either the surface data or the modeling. But the point here is that you are representing the issue of GW as "settled science." I don't know how this can be done when the science underlying the taking of the Earth's temperature remains unsettled.

f) None of the above [but you must write in your own answer below].

Ya see, I didn't forget everything from high school, and I did show up once in awhile (but mostly only for quizzes & tests, and of course my weekly "motivational" talk with the Asst. Principal ).

But before you begin, and for bonus points on the quiz, what evidence do you have that Christy & Spencer's religious faith affects their policy recommendations?

Read The Cornwall Declaration. It is a political missive.

Even accepting this as true, how do you think it skewers these scientists' policy prescriptions? All I've read is their opinion that their data doesn't show GW either as severe or as attributable to human influence as the mainstream crowd, and therefore taxing fossil fuels or taking other dramatic steps will hurt the economy, and set back the advances that have been made getting record nos. of people out of poverty. Sounds more economic than religious, and their suggested remedy better fits their particular theory of GW. In other words, I gather they believe that the cure could hurt worse than the purported illness. Other scientists have different opinions about the appropriate cure because they differ on the severity of the illness.

[jackdale]

Exile

Responding your word salad is very difficult.

OK, so it's the measuring of the Earth's temperature from the troposphere that is unreliable in your opinion, not the measurements themselves. Fair reading?

That is Mear's opinion as well.

That was all explained in the Mears article, but also prefaced with some uncertainty.

Science is based on evidence and probability. Proof is for booze and mathematics.

OK, but you have been consistently insinuating that their religious beliefs are influencing outcomes in some illegitimate way. No sense arguing over semantics.

I have not said that. BTW - semantics is what provides us with meaning. (Freshman philosophy)

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

Where have I said the science is settled? Please quote me.

This is not an economic statement, it is the first clause of the Cornwall Declaration

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

But before you begin, and for bonus points on the quiz, what evidence do you have that Christy & Spencer's religious faith affects their policy recommendations?

BTW an Evangelical Christian for whom I have a lot of respect.

Canadian climate scientist finds fame, hate mail in U.S. - The Globe and Mail

And Canadian, eh?

and

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...orth-carolina/

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am skeptical .

Well let's see.....

The mean elevation of Colorado is 6800ft, which is equal to 2,072,640 millimeters. Now divide 2,072,640 using my scientific calculator by the three millimeters your scientists claim the oceans will continue to each year....

According to Jack and his scientists, it will take exactly 690,880 years for the sea level to rise up high enough for us to be purchasing ocean front property in Colorado.

Yep... pretty sure we can out run this thing, and not loose too much sleep worrying about it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Well let's see.....

The mean elevation of Colorado is 6800ft, which is equal to 2,072,640 millimeters. Now divide 2,072,640 using my scientific calculator by the three millimeters your scientists claim the oceans will continue to each year....

According to Jack and his scientists, it will take exactly 690,880 years for the sea level to rise up high enough for us to be purchasing ocean front property in Colorado.

Yep... pretty sure we can out run this thing.

Did your sense of humour disappear?