And by the way, it's far easier to believe that the uptake of carbon by the atmosphere and the ocean is sourced from fossil fuels. If it wasn't that way then you'd have to explain where all of that carbon we dug up out of the atmosphere went if not into the atmosphere and oceans plus you'd need to explain why and how nature suddenly decided to completely change its behavior with natural emissions. Then on top of that you'd have to explain why ocean pH levels are decreasing (ocean uptake) and biomass increase (vegetation uptake) all the while atmospheric uptake also increased. Again, carbon uptake is increasing everywhere in the geosphere...well...everywhere except fossil fuel strata from underneath the ground. Now think about that for a moment.
Exactly. Nature is scrubbing about 50% of our emissions mainly by ocean uptake. But as the ocean warms its propensity for CO2 uptake decreases. Furthermore, one thing the IPCC actually doesn't fully account for is the possibility of tipping points in which not only the scrubbing effectiveness decreases but actual new sources of CO2 and CH4 emissions get activated due to a warming Earth. That's why people need to realize that being wrong is a double edged sword. And that proverbial sword in regards to the official IPCC range of 1.5C to 4.5C of warming per doubling of CO2 is a lot sharper and cuts much deeper on the high end of the range. In other words, if the IPCC is wrong it's more likely that they are underestimating the warming than they are overestimating it.
Robert's thought process: 1. Write a statement 2. Sees another poster responds to statement 3. have no idea how to debate my own statement 4. Copy & paste articles which I have not read and have no clue what they are going on about 5. Rinse and repeat
From Curry site https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/18/...ort-on-global-warming-of-1-5c/#comment-882534 stevefitzpatrick | October 23, 2018 at 3:33 pm | One very telling thing about “alarmist” is that they endlessly offer the same straw-man arguments about the stupidity of “skeptics” and the “certainty” of global warming disaster, while refusing to see that their proposed ‘solutions’ are both set in stone and 100% politically motivated. Yes, more infrared absorbing gases in the atmosphere will cause some warming. No need to argue about that. Yes, in the long run humanity will need to transition away from reduced carbon as it’s principle energy source. No need to argue about that either. No need to rail against people who think climate scientists have (and always have had) their thumbs on the scale, willfully exaggerate, and tell “scary stories” to motivate their desired public policies; true or not, it doesn’t matter at all. Those are all straw men issues. The real issues, and the ones that seem never seriously addressed by the “alarmed” are how much warming (and where) versus the obvious economic and social benefits of using fossil fuels, and what will be the east expensive and most beneficial way to make a long term transition away from fossil fuels. So long as you insist on “solutions” (solar panels, reduced material wealth, wind turbines everywhere, stop eating meat, etc.) people will not accept, nothing much will happen. CO2 emissions are high and will be high for multiple decades, and the longer “alarmists” insist on unworkable public policies, the longer those emissions will remain high. And jeffnsails850 | October 23, 2018 at 1:30 pm | Tony, it’s global. Germany is the most invested and won’t hit it’s 2020 goals- emissions actually increased there the last two years. The EU as a whole isn’t even close. Every ton of emissions reduced in the west has been offset by at least two tons in additional emissions in China. We’ve been hearing for 30 years that renewables work just fine and cost less than fossil fuels or nuclear yet we now have 30 years of evidence that developing nations- which have the highest need for cost and effectiveness- don’t choose them. Including in communist nations. Australians talk a great game at home and export coal. Canadians laugh at Trump and keep the oil sands going. Brazilians cheer a leftward shift and cut down the rainforest. The Washington Post calls the guy who has been president all of two years “complicit” in the weather and educated people roll their eyes and turn the page. The warm war against the two alternatives to coal that have actually reduced CO2 emissions- natural gas expansion and nuclear – based on the odd assumption that we may have no time left, but we can spend the next 30 years trying for the same policies that they’ve failed to get for the last 30 years. And niclewis | October 22, 2018 at 3:29 am | franktoo: “The slope of future warming (TCRE) has been reduced by averaging the inferior? MAGICC model (0.45 TtCO2/K) with the newer FAIR model (0.38 TtCO2/K).” Only in relation to non-CO2 caused warming, which is a relatively minor fraction of total warming. As I wrote: “when calculating its carbon budgets, SR15 only uses MAGICC and FAIR (averaging their results) to project post-2010 temperature changes in response to non-CO2 emissions.” The MAGICC TCRE is 0.47 K/TtCO2. The mean (and median) TCRE used for projecting CO2 warming in SR15 is 0.45 K/TtCO2, being the mid-point of the IPCC AR5 TCRE range.. “I would like to know your value based on energy balance models.” My estimate of TCRE, observationally-based as far as possible, is approximately 0.3 K/TtCO2. “If you re-publish this article for other audiences, I suggest that you condense the key information into a table and provide a range of conversion factors” Thank you for this suggestion, which I agree has merit.
Can you control China and the nations as they enter the modern age? Huh? the USA has done a lot to "fix this problem" Can you control the rest?
So what is it that you feel the IPCC is being "alarmist" about? What is the point here? If you don't acknowledge that CO2 warms the planet then does it really matter how much China is spewing? And if you do acknowledge that CO2 warms the planet then how does the fact that China emits a lot of it make it any less of a problem for the Earth?
No and No. By answering no to your questions did the problem go away? Did the laws of physics change? Will CO2 magically stop warming the planet?
Do you intend your message get to China and other developing areas? I can't solve your problem. We in America by changes to technology are doing about as much as we can. We might plant more trees of course, but seldom if ever will Democrats in America accept planting more trees. Why not join a Chinese forum and appeal to those folks?
To your first question use the Curry site and ask the man yourself. I posted links to Curry. And to question 2. Same idea. Post your beliefs there. I challenge you to join the Curry site and explain your views to them. Let me ask this of YOU. I admit to driving a 1994 Cadillac that i bought new. Now, since I bought that car, i have not paid for any other car. I have saved Earth a lot of CO2 by sticking to the now old car. And as to cars, how many cars, all that in the making of, added to CO2. have you bought and driven since 1994? Fair question to you. So simply put, since 1994 how many cars did you buy that cost the planet dearly? (your sentiments over mine, by the way)
The central problem with your analysis here is that you STILL haven't figured out the difference between climate and weather. Weather DOES change through many degrees. However, biology is oriented to climate. And, when climate changes it impacts the biology. For one example, a forest may depend on a climate where temperatures periodically get too cold for some disease vector. If that happens even slightly less frequently, the forest could die from direct or indirect impact of infestation. And, humans living around that forest may not be able to detect the difference without taking careful measurements over a period of years. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...acts-rocky-mountain-forests.html#.W9DKSWhKiUk This is also true for human disease. Disease vectors can be advantaged by climate change - allowing the vector to thrive or to survive in a wider region.
We don't have to control China. China is working to control China. We have to work to control the USA, the world's worst per capita offender.
How the hell can you read me and make up things bad about me? I had not hinted the topic is disease either.
We're number 2 with emissions greater than 50% of China's total emissions - even though China has more than 3 times our population. Our per capita behavior is more than twice as bad as that of China. China is working hard on their problem. We are NOT. That is serious.
Well, you confused the definitions of climate and weather, and that's a continuing issue with your posts. I pointed to two cases of very real climate change concerns which would be overlooked by your misunderstanding of climate. I'm sorry if that is offensive, but given your prolific posting on this topic and the ramifications, I find it reasonably interesting to point out that fundamental misunderstanding.
Let's try this to wake you up. Delete weather from Climate and what is left? Exclude Weather and tell me what we have? By the way, you saying I am confused is not true. I have no misunderstanding about either of the two topics.
You repeatedly point out that local temperature undergoes changes throughout the year by more than the number of degrees that climatologists are concerned about when talking about climate change. That is your mistake. The change in temperature between winter and summer isn't the issue when talking about the kind of impact that climate change has. I gave you two specific examples. In those cases, climate change can cause biological change in a specific location even though the number of degrees of climate change is small compared to the temperature range throughout a year.
Pointing a finger at someone else is really pretty much NEVER a valid argument. Again, China committed to working on their problem. Other nations are working on their parts of the problem, even though each of them is not as problematic as the USA. Likewise, we need to start working on OUR problem.
When will you quit insulting America? What you are acting like is equivalent to saying China never overtook the USA and is innocent. They were far back of us. Then they passed us. I don't mind truthful comments but this love of China takes the cake.
This is not about me. It is about you ducking the issue. All i do when I mention any or all local conditions is to point out we are not yet roasted in either CA nor our super hot desert and the end is not upon us. I am not even disputing your last claim. If your motive against me is to cause me to fear the environment is not good for snakes, no thanks
Insult?? Where the heck did you get that? The proper course of events is to identify problems and then start working on them. Do you have ANYTHING constructive to say that falls within that process?
