Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

Try unsubstantiated belief over facts and reason. Frankly I think you knew exactly what I was talking about.

 

I absolutely believe in facts and reason. Those are the basis for my conclusion that human CO2 emissions result in global warming but that the magnitude of warming attributable to those human CO2 emissions is nothing to worry about and that policies designed to reduce emissions and consequently reduce economic growth will do net harm to the human race. Alarmists believe the scenarios based on the upper limits of models which cannot predict the data of the past. I believe in what the data indicates.

 

So what does your data indicate?
Does it indicate there will not be major rising of the ocean resulting in the abandonment of cities like Miami and New York and broadly contaminating coastal water tables?
Does it indicate there will not be an increase in storm intensity and areas of drought?
Does it indicate there will not be an increase in ocean acidity resulting in reef and shell fish destruction?
Does it indicate there will not be an increase in environmental refugees, some of which we are seeing in North Africa?
Does it indicate there will not be an acceleration of species destruction many of which are critical in our lives?
Does it indicate that warming will not spread tropical diseases into presently cooler zones?
Are the experts wrong when they say AGW will result in trillions of dollars in recovery costs? And what does that contribute to growth?

I'm aware of Bjorn Borg's thesis that simply increasing growth now will eventually provide the capital to come up with solutions to problems that he thinks are many decades away, like maybe vacuuming in all the carbon gas into massive sequestration mines. I think the climate experts have shot holes in his thesis but if you want to argue from that perspective, by all means be my guest.

In the mean time in my first post on this thread I was demonstrating a false comparison with past interglacials showing the CO2 level is much higher now than it was back then. No one seems to want to address that issue.

 

A correction; I meant Bjorn Lomborg, the statistician, not Bjorn Borg, the tennis player. I'm not aware of any edit key so if anyone knows how I can edit posts I'd appreciate being informed on the matter.

 

The real world data indicates a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 1 deg C. It also shows that the temperature 1000 years ago was greater than it is today with CO2 at lower levels.

All of the contentions that are listed are based on the upper limit of models and the precautionary principle. The warming of the globe in the next 100 years will have a net beneficial effect. Some are just dead wrong - Malaria is not a tropical disease and was a major problem in Europe before economic progress resulted in the eradication of the anopheles mosquito there.

The edit button is available for a short period of time after a post is entered - then it goes away. BTW Lomborg is an economist who believes that humans contribute to global warming via CO2 emissions and he advocates a carbon tax to generate revenues to address global warming. His two best books IMO are "Cool It" and "Smart Solutions".

 

The rise in warming seems to also correspond to the increase in the use of chlorinated water and chlorine is a major greenhouse gas. What makes you so sure it is the car and not your water hose that is the problem?

 

In the first part I assume you are referring to the doubling of CO2. The broad scientific consensus is roughly 3 deg C. A few outliers like Lindzen say 1 deg C. I can't count the number of times that guy has been shot down. As to the second part you are just flat out wrong. It is higher now than during the height of the MWP, The graph tells the story.

All my contentions are normative based on present demonstration and IPCC predictions. It sounds like you have settled on a mantra more than facts.,

Sorry, agriculture in Siberia is not the totality of the matter. But it might explain why Putin is relaxed about AGW.

The Zita virus is moving north with the help of global warming among many. And yes, malaria was also in North America. Still it is more naturally prevalent in the tropics due to weather conditions. I call it primarily a tropical disease.

Lomborg isn't always wrong but he's wrong a lot. He says global warming won't be a serious problem until around 2070. That's crazy. It already is a problem.
There is even a site devoted to Lomborg's errors.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

 

My opinions are based on facts. Yours on models. The IPCC has lowered the range of climate sensitivity to 1.5 which matches the real world data. The models are not capable of predicting the past temperature records.

Zica virus is moving north because of global warming - that's ridiculous.

The Lomborg errors site is just a hit piece by some global warming alarmists.

 

they don't make policy

 

Find me a source that backs up anything you say. All I get is assertion. As for the Zika virus since it is more concentrated in warm areas it stands to reason that a warming planet would provide greater areas for the mosquito that carries it to expand into. Only a denialist would ignore such an obvious point.

You appear to wrong on just about everythihg. Consider climate sensitivity.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

As for the Lomborg error site you might want to point out a fact they got wrong. So far you've scored 0 on facts and your logic is nonexistent.

 

Why bother - you obviously have not done due diligence in studying the issue and provided a list of references you will not be reading them.

You claim the Zika virus is headed north for thousands of miles due to a 1 deg per century warming rate ??

Come'on man - skeptical science. That's a product of the Michael Mann hockey team to perpetuate the hockey stick myth. The Fourth assessment is ancient history. Check out the latest.

Why waste time with an obvious hit site ??

 

You should have just left it there. No facts. No logic.

 

I and others have provided all the facts that are needed to make an informed opinion about global warming in this and other threads in this sub forum. I'd suggest that a review of those/this thread would benefit your perspective greatly. I (and others) are not interested in repeating the same over and over again.

 

I am trying my best to influence Canada's Conservative Party to take
climate change more seriously.

I would be honoured to have your assessment of the alternative plan that I have
put in front of Kellie Leitch M. D. who aspires to become national leader of
the Conservative Party and eventually P. M. of Canada.


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477572&p=1066717417#post1066717417
Kellie Leitch for National Leader of Conservative Party.

 

A new study out the shows more methane is released in the winter months in the arctic.

 

You might want to study history which shows during warm periods humanity expands and excels in during cold periods humanity starves and dies. Warmer is good colder is bad. Also in earths history CO2 has been much higher when it has been cold and much lower when it is been warm. It may just turn out the CO2 is not the driver of climate as some suspect.

When it comes to sea level rise, seas have been rising for quite some time long before SUVs were invented. This can be found in coastal areas now underwater that man had at one time populated. Better to use the money to prepare for something that you cannot change instead of wasting it on folly.

 

History? You get your climate science from history?
Which historians do you read for the climate discussion? I must have missed them.

This comment though. I will save it for posterity. Simply amazing.

 

Climate realists get climate information from data collected from the real world and documented as an historical record. Alarmists get climate information from computer models which are not capable of "predicting" the historical record.

The science is clear. The real world data shows a climate sensitivity of CO2 as ~ 1 deg C. The "consensus" of general circulation models (which cannot predict the past) shows a climate sensitivity of CO2 as ~ 3.5 deg C. A correct way of evaluating the effects of global warming considers both benefits and negatives and shows net benefits for global warming up to 3 deg C. Using the A1B CO2 curve indicates that the global average temperature will increase by ~ 1 deg C by the year 2100 when the CO2 concentration will be ~ 700 ppm. And the global average temperature will increase by another 2 deg C after an increase in CO2 to 2800 ppm. There is nothing to worry about except the economic harm done by public energy policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions by the developed countries (developing countries won't reduce fossil fuel power generation).

You are confusing scientific evidence based on the historical record with computer simulations based on assumptions which have no basis in the real world.

Save the above and study it.

 

A good video which debunks the above denialist myth about climate sensitivity:

[video=youtube;u4L8w5wUh9s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4L8w5wUh9s&feature=yo utu.be[/video]

 

I get my information from data (not estimates). The sensitivity can be calculated from the data in a very straight forward manner. You get your information from YouTube in which the speaker acknowledges that his methods are from models. Please ??

 

Yes, history, something that must be foreign to some one that believes that 100 years of actual temperature readings constitutes their complete history.

 

Alarmists do not like real data.

 

As a historian I have simply never come across any text that could be used for climate science.
You think someone commenting on the heat or cold is scientific?

History is all but foreign to me. You on the other hand seem to fail no matter what the subject.

I'll refrain from asking for the historic sources as you never provide anything anyway.

Still... Thanks for the laugh,

 

A fairly recent cold period is historic, The Little Ice Age. Drawings of the time shows people skating on the Thames. The Minoan and Roman warm periods correspond to periods of expansion. Gulf Coast civilizations moved due to sea level rise moving the coast which shows it rises in steps rather than a steady increase.

Some people say that these periods were not global but observed science says otherwise. Since most of the land masses are in the northern hemisphere northern ocean circulation's cause greater disruptions in the northern hemisphere.

Warmer is good. Colder is bad. When it gets colder crops fail it becomes more arid and humanity suffers. According to NASA the earth is greening due to CO2 fertilization. There are lots of positive and negative feedbacks that are not very well understood at all in climate science. In fact there are very many unknown unknowns in climate science.

 

You are truly showing the world the depth of your scientific knowledge. Do keep going.