US Defence Secretary James Mattis says climate change is already destabilising the world

No tempoarily befuddled brain.

For something to change it has to have some form of alteration to the energy equation. The world is getting hotter what is causing that change?

 

Finally on AR5 I see - and what is the revised climate sensitivity of CO2 range in AR5 ??

Pages 387 - 418 summarize the MWP studies in CCR II.

 

I said I will read yours if you read mine

 

Apparently, aberrant attitudes abound in Aynrandistan.

 

Again there is obviously there is no fundamental understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is not a driver. And entropy is always increasing.

http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html

The globe is warming because more heat is being accumulated.

 

No comment then on the reduction in the climate sensitivity in AR5 ??

Which pages cover the MWP and a discussion of entropy driving global warming ??

 

Are you sure that article qualifies as a scientific paper? Has it been published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

It's a 993 page book with a ~ 40 page section of the MWP which consolidates the findings of hundreds of peer reviewed papers which have been published in scientific journals. I get very little information from the internet.

 

Why would you accept this report from the Heartland Institute over the IPCC report?

 

Yes it is. They even try to explain how they became extinct. Yet they wasn't there, they don't have a clue. It's all a matter of persuasion, a persuasion that over time becomes agreed upon, simply from how many times the lie was told.

If that's how you feel, quit purchasing products that contribute to what you stand against. Otherwise your being a hypocrite. If you don't know what products those are, then your argument is void.

 

Because it considers all forcings involved in global warming and is fully referenced and footnoted. Why would you accept a report on global warming which considers only human caused global warming ??

 

It is inaccurate to claim that the IPCC report only considers that humans caused the warming.

 

It is totally accurate. They are interested only in AGW. How can an organization which is only focused on one forcing claim to understand the totality of global warming ??

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

http://objectivescience.net/intergo...-organization-but-a-political-lobbying-group/

 

Sorry I asked

 

She sums it up pretty well doesn't she.

 

Right. I'm going to listen to some idiot who doesn't think dinosaurs existed.
Trump man, I assume?

 

Yes - she made the mistake of telling the truth.

 

This isn't a political point of contention when discussing the validity of the science of climate change. Just like there is no political aspect to discussing the science of whether dinosaurs exist.

Although, I'd like you to consider that one of the reasons you are willing to dismiss the science of climate change is because you don't like the political ramifications of the solution.

 

Quoting me their principle does nothing to contradict my statement. The IPCC does evaluate other methods of climate change. You can read their report here and I ask that you focus on Part 1.2 titled "Causes of Climate Change."

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

They note that the evidence for human impact and causation is clear, but they do analyze the other potential methods of climate change.

 

Where are the referenced papers ?? I scanned through the link but did not find any. But I did not in Figure SPM.1 that the gradient of temp with time is the same from 1910 - 1945 as it is from 1975 - 2000. If the effects of CO2 only started ~ 1950 how is it possible that the temp gradient is the same ??

 

You can read their conclusions regarding this point. Section 1.2 should similarly be easy to find without me telling you the page number of the report.

 

You can't defend in your own words ?? That's difficult because there is no discussion of other forcings or any reason given for the same slope in the time periods with very different rates of atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. It does say however that humans are responsible for half the temperature increases. What caused the other half ??

 

We don't know. But, with the polar ice caps and mountain glaciers around the world disappearing at an ever increasing rate, the impacts of that change is already beginning to have an impact on some societies in sensitive areas. Do we respond to those early warnings or ignore them until they overwhelm our children and their children's world? If we care about the world around us and the people inhabiting it, don't we owe it to the planet and all its inhabitants and ourselves, to do whatever we can to protect it? Isn't being conscientiously proactive better than waiting until the threat becomes a crisis and becoming knee-jerk reactionary to its impacts, like we tend to do with so many issues?

 

Global warming is net beneficial. Do we do net harm to low income people by attempting to reduce the rate of warming by increasing energy prices ?? Applying the precautionary principle to global warming harms people.

 

What are Mad Dog Mattis' views on the DDT ban?

2004: Climate Change May Kill Us All - We Must Use Diesel Cars.

2017: Diesel pollution may kill more Europeans than the Battle of the Somme.

"Oh. Well, we meant well."