Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Engineers are trained to produce answers using incomplete information. The definitions of those terms are useless in the development of useful correlations. I've concluded from the real world data that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is ~ 1 deg C. That IMO is an actionable fact (along with economic analysis of net benefits) to base energy policy on.

 

The definitions of those terms are the definitions of those terms. Nothing more. Any engineer could tell you that. Do you happen to know one you can ask?

 

Those terms are of no value with respect to developing working relationships used to form conclusions used to develop processes, products, manufacturing equipment, quality control equipment, etc ...

 

Oh my apologies, I was under the impression that we were talking about science. Now your position makes total sense (It contains no science). Well, just keep in mind that if you ever decide you want to give the science thing a try, you now have a handy guide for what those terms actually mean.

 

Like I said, CO2 is not the only factor that drives climate.

 

I'm applying science.

- - - Updated - - -

In which direction does CO2 drive global average temperature - up, down, or sideways. Or is it:

Yardbirds (1966) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4DdAs0PddQ

 

Not all factors are known or understood. If you do not understand all the other forcings then you cannot with any certainty determine if the CO2 hypothesis is even close to being correct.

 

I don't have to. People that are smarter and more educated than me already have.

 

In other words, politicians and the media. No chance for any curiosity or application of intellect.

 

Well, you are trying to, I'll give you that. Luckily now when you try you have a handy guide and you will be able to do much better. (Don't forget to print it out)

 

I'm sure people would happily and hungrily digest any non-politician and non-media citations that you would like to provide to back up any of your assertions. But we both know there is zero chance of that happening. So until then they are just that, baseless assertions.

 

I have plenty of curiosity but I am not a climate scientist. I take the results of organizations such as NASA and other reputable sources. I don't get my science from unknowns off political forums. Sorry....

 

I can't help the fact that you have no desire to read any of the scientific literature or listen to any of the scientists that speak out about the science. Citations come for media and the media often gets it wrong but hey that's where you get your science from.

- - - Updated - - -

And you think this administration has no agenda?

 

What a surprise!! Hoosier provided no citation for ... well ... anything at all.

 

There are scientists blogs there are lots of papers. There's plenty out there for you to read but, you have no desire.

 

Ahhh ... The standard "Go look for yourself" ploy ... you and AFM have this one down pat. See, the problem is, it's your assertion. It therefore falls to you to back it up. If you can't back it up then, as we all know ...

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

 

Why bother? As you claim, you aren't smart enough to understand science.

 

Engineers get answers and rationale for those answers. Academics talk about theories, hypotheses, axioms, laws, etc ... and are always are handed their a$$es in a design or project reviews.

- - - Updated - - -

It ultimately falls to having the curiosity and initiative to discover the truth. Why bother doing homework for those who do not possess those qualities.

 

We discover the truth....only to find you are wrong.

 

The only model the closely follows the actual troposphere temperature is the Russian model. The Russians do not hinge their models on CO2.

 

You have to wonder if most people are smart enough to differntiate between political correctness and actual science.


.

 

Well, politics said the science of settled. Anyone that says that doesn't understand science.

 

Al Gore (who invented the internet) warned us about global warming way back in the year 2000 but we're still alive today. We don't have good jobs or a promising future but at least we're still alive. If you blame all your problems on climate change you don't hate the politicians so much.

 

I test the politics of AGW by what the politicians see as solutions. When they do not do responsible things to solve the problem, I realize they do it purely over politics.

The politics is called not doing the job of government, but trying to rule human actions.

There is a vast difference in a government by the people, of the people and for the people vs what Democrats offer to the public.

Democrats won't admit to this, but they are essentially operating as a king, a Monarch or Dictator would.

 

We all can test climate change and models quite easily if we have the means.

Take a person that lives in the Arctic. Clearly that climate differs from the lower 48 states.

They need move to say Alabama to have a very different climate. See if that harms them? Report back that they have not been harmed by the warmer climate. Next, get to the tropics of South America. Find out how much harm they suffer by being warmer. Did that hurt them?

Seems to me so many live in the tropics and we don't hear of harm due to their climate, it rules out that warm climate hurts us.

Dr. Lindzen to be paraphrased, this is a lot of talk over a non issue.