Question for Algore supporters (those who believe CO2 affects Earth climate change)

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by LaDairis, May 21, 2016.

  1. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What then are the low and high limits of the the range of model predictions from the IPCC for the global average temperature in the year 2100 ??
     
  2. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The Arctic is ocean almost completely surrounded by land. The Antarctic is land completely surrounded by water. And being water that means there are no mountains to disrupt the flow of winds allofthe way around Antarctica. It is inevitable that they be different but it will take investigation of a lot details that we don't know do determine the minutia of all of how and why they are so different.

    Do you actually regard that as an intelligent question?

    psik
     
  3. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The historical sensitivity is right about 3.0C, just as the models predict.

    (SAT has changed about 1.5C. The 40% rise in C02 is about half a doubling. Hence, 3.0C per doubling.)

    Sure it can. More land in the NH than SH. Land is more susceptible to GHG warming than ocean. Hence, NH warms faster, even with more aerosols.

    That's not what the insurance companies and economists have calculated.

    Since you're not taking into account the staggering cost of inaction, that argument fails. Nor does it take into account how renewables are often now cheaper than fossil fuels.
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The historical TCR is ~ 1.3.

    https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/25/updated-climate-sensitivity-estimates/

    The Bjorn Stevens paper "Rethinking the Lower Bound on Aerosol Radiative Forcing" - 2015 explains that the models can't get the warming of the early 20th century correct because they use a much too large a forcing from sulfate aerosol cooling. This means that the models have an unrealistically high sensitivity to CO2.

    Source - "Lukewarming" - Michaels & Knappenberger - 2015

    The insurance companies are operating on alarmist predictions from models which do not match the real world.

    The work has been done by Dr. Richard Tol who acknowledges the contribution of human CO2 emissions to global warming. He summarizes the 14 papers which look at the economic consequences of global warming (why only 14 ??) in a paper issued in 2009 which found that there is net benefit for global warming less than ~ 2.3 deg C. Some minor errors were found in that paper and two other papers were added and a revision was issued in 2014 reducing the temperature to ~ 2.0 deg C. After temperatures in excess of that This was jumped on by the alarmists as proof that Tol's work was discredited. The links are below as well as a link to a chapter that Dr. Tol wrote in the book "How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World - A Scorecard from 1900 to 2050" - Edited by Lomborg - 2013.

    And since the climate sensitivity to CO2 has been shown to be ~ 1.3 deg C based on data from 1880 to the present that threshold is long into the 22nd century.

    The ancillary important take away from this is that lower income (third world) countries are most adversely affected. The uses of inexpensive, energy concentrated, and readily available fossil fuels would maximize economic development of these countries rendering them much more able to take adaptive and corrective actions to global warming. SecState John Kerry's admonition to these third world countries to do their part and to rely on renewables shows a gross disregard for human life.

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.23.2.29

    http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.28.2.221

    http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/s...ate_change.pdf

    BTW, Dr. Tol has done some work showing the reality of the oft quoted 97% of scientists statistic. But I'll leave that up the interested and curious who are willing to challenge their beliefs.

    The staggering costs of inaction are based on worst case predictions from the models based on the precautionary principle. And besides these changes take place very slowly and can be adapted to in direct proportion to the price, availability, and reliability of energy. Fossil fuels provide the best methods of supplying this energy and a steady supply of energy is the best way to adapt and control the effects of climate variation. To admonish developing nations that it their duty to convert to unreliable renewables which hinder their economic growth and their ability to adapt and control climate variations is to devalue human life with respect to the environment. Additionally fossil fuel energy provides the resources for technology development of market competitive alternative energy sources in the future.
     
  5. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yours are the opinions of a few outlier scientists. The greatest scientific minds on the planet disagree with you
     
  6. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Needle stuck ??
     
  7. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the same question is asked over and over the correct answer will always be the same
     
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Knee jerk then. And the questions have not been the same. But anything at odds with the AGW alarmism receives the same response with no curiosity, initiative, or obligation to challenge those best scientific minds on the planet who can't seem to predict the past. So lives in the present are lost to the precautionary actions based on predictions of the future.
     
  9. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you have nothing new you will be given the same old answer. The truth remains the truth
     
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the same old answer from the alarmists is basically to kill people today based on the predictions of computer models with a range of ~ 6 deg C which cannot predict the past. Sadly that is the truth.
     
  11. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sadly you are stuck on a lie.
     
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is the range of year 2100 temperature rise predicted by the settled science and where is it shown that any of the IPCC computer models matches the past ??
     
  13. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Climate models match the past quite well. In fact they may be a bit too conservative
    https://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/models_are_reliable.asp
     
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which model is that (there are a great many models used in the IPCC reports) ?? Why do the charts stop at the year 2000 ?? Why does Hansen's scenario C match the real world data better than A or B ?? What is Hansen's scenario C ?? Why do the tide gauge readings stop at the year 2000 ?? Does the solar forcing include the 20 - 30 year time delay ??
     
  15. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is another reference

    http://www.theguardian.com/environm...te-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming
     
  16. LaDairis

    LaDairis Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't we get an "ice free Arctic" prediction that has already been proven completely wrong??

    Like, there are still 800k cubic miles of ice on Greenland...
     
  17. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who made that prediction?
     
  18. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read that carefully. More assumptions both in the models themselves or in the future (when El Nino and La Nina cycles change). Meanwhile the data shows a sensitivity of ~ 1 deg C to CO2. But the models which again cannot match the past without manipulation (forcing sea water temperature data) over predict climate sensitivity leading to energy policy recommendations resulting in increased deaths today.
     
  19. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To bad almost no one agrees with you
     
  20. LaDairis

    LaDairis Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Type in "ice free Arctic" into Google and see all of 'em yourself...
     
  21. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll settle for the data.
     
  23. LaDairis

    LaDairis Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  24. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is your point? You do understand we are moving very much in that direction?
     
  25. LaDairis

    LaDairis Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It is truly sad that "humans" like you insist on "who should I parrot" instead of "does this make sense."

    You have total ice growth in the Antarctic Circle, and sea ice loss in the Arctic. You parrot that increased CO2 in the atmosphere (which is not warming the atmosphere) is responsible for sea ice loss in the Arctic.

    THINK

    Then WHY is the Antarctic Sea ice GROWING???
     

Share This Page