Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

Do you want to provide a link because I've looked all over their website and I can't find it?

Straight from the horse's mouth

Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences.

[E]ven a warming of only 2ºC from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2ºC from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding.

So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.

 

[FLVOL69]

If you don't want to put forth the effort to tell me where or what you felt ignored about I'm sure not going to find it.

And you'll have to forgive me but I'm still not entirely convinced you're serious about the term 'climate sensitivity'. I mean, really? What would you prefer we call it?

Weather conscious ??

 

[Sandvol]

Straight from the horse's mouth

That's from Media Matters. Where is the supposed statement on his website?

 

[Grand Vol]

If you don't want to put forth the effort to tell me where or what you felt ignored about I'm sure not going to find it.

And you'll have to forgive me but I'm still not entirely convinced you're serious about the term 'climate sensitivity'. I mean, really? What would you prefer we call it?

It's the terminology used Bart. Sensitivity? Invokes the images of cuddly kittens and puppies and whatnot.

I guess it's just another term we have to get used to.

Anyway, I'll paraphrase the original question. Not that you're going to answer it...

With so many doom and gloom predictions over the years (which you scoffed as an acknowledgment) how can one tell exactly what the climate change will bring? I mean, it's everything from nothing will happen to OMG the planet will burn up.

So exactly how can I trust the predictions of the scientific community when they have been wrong so many times before?

And don't divert the question. A direct answer will suffice.

 

[BartW]

That's from Media Matters. Where is the supposed statement on his website?

Follow the link in the media matters article then click statement

 

[BartW]

It's the terminology used Bart. Sensitivity? Invokes the images of cuddly kittens and puppies and whatnot.

I guess it's just another term we have to get used to.

Lol. That is not what the word ‘sensitivity’ means in hard sciences. Seriously, what would you prefer we call it?

Anyway, I'll paraphrase the original question. Not that you're going to answer it...

With so many doom and gloom predictions over the years (which you scoffed as an acknowledgment) how can one tell exactly what the climate change will bring?

You could read the IPCC's fifth assessment report.

I mean, it's everything from nothing will happen to OMG the planet will burn up.

So exactly how can I trust the predictions of the scientific community when they have been wrong so many times before?

And don't divert the question. A direct answer will suffice.

We did not ignore that question. We asked you and you could not provide any examples of said phony ‘gloom and doom’ predictions endorsed by mainstream science. You just pointed to some random anecdotes from a couple of people. And stop complaining about diverting. Iirc you were the one repeatedly diverting when I asked you to define the “gloom and doom” crowd supposedly making these predictions. And you’re still deflecting in the cop thread too…

Your post also smells heavily of the ‘science was wrong before’ fallacy. Do you think the scientific community was also wrong about lead pollution, DDT, ozone depletion, acid rain, and other environmental 'scares'? Do you think science is wrong more often than it is right? Do you really distrust the entire scientific community?

No offense but I thought you were better than this

 

[BartW]

Anti-environmental stereotyping

bump

Stereotyping

Conflating actual environmental problems with the nature woo peddled by some environmental groups (e.g., aspartame scares, rejection of GM crops as "Frankenfoods").

 

[Carl Pickens]

All I care about is Santa Claus.

 

[Grand Vol]

We did not ignore that question. We asked you and you could not provide any examples of said phony ‘gloom and doom’ predictions endorsed by mainstream science. You just pointed to some random anecdotes from a couple of people.

Typical. I bring points from not just "random" people, but department heads in some pretty heavy hitting universities and groups. It's not like I was quoting the president of the local Sierra Club Chapter at the Southwest Oklahoma Community College of the deaf and blind.

Stanford. Princeton. The United Nations Environment Program.

Not exactly small time here you know? And that's just a sampling of what I could find after a brief net search. So now you want to pick and choose what information and sources you think are relevant? And dismiss those that you feel are out there? Who is the denier now?

Get off your high horse with the bull**** of name calling. You've been called out on the predictions, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that some fairly influential members of the environmental movement are making some pretty serious claims. And even back peddling on some. It's not random comments made, it's official papers, books and predictions that have not come to pass.

And last, but not least, you refuse to answer the basic question of who to trust when it comes to the end result of climate change. Why? Because you and your ilk can't answer the question. Try saying the words "I really don't know" for a change instead of being a child and continually pointing to that idiotic website that does not even remotely apply to me.

Grow up, admit the things you don't know and try to be rational about the whole thing.

 

[Sandvol]

Follow the link in the media matters article then click statement

That is pretty funny. It appears he didn't comprehend what his findings would infer. Nick Lewis used the Max Planck aerosol study to model climate sensitivity and found an upper bound of 1.8C(17-83%) and not above 2C and well below the AR5 upper bound of 4.5C.

The implications for climate sensitivity of Bjorn Stevens’ new aerosol forcing paper « Climate Audit

 

[Sandvol]

Typical. I bring points from not just "random" people, but department heads in some pretty heavy hitting universities and groups. It's not like I was quoting the president of the local Sierra Club Chapter at the Southwest Oklahoma Community College of the deaf and blind.

Stanford. Princeton. The United Nations Environment Program.

Not exactly small time here you know? And that's just a sampling of what I could find after a brief net search. So now you want to pick and choose what information and sources you think are relevant? And dismiss those that you feel are out there? Who is the denier now?

Get off your high horse with the bull**** of name calling. You've been called out on the predictions, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that some fairly influential members of the environmental movement are making some pretty serious claims. And even back peddling on some. It's not random comments made, it's official papers, books and predictions that have not come to pass.

And last, but not least, you refuse to answer the basic question of who to trust when it comes to the end result of climate change. Why? Because you and your ilk can't answer the question. Try saying the words "I really don't know" for a change instead of being a child and continually pointing to that idiotic website that does not even remotely apply to me.

Grow up, admit the things you don't know and try to be rational about the whole thing.

With these guys it is not about truth but advancing their agenda.

 

[McDad]

Typical. I bring points from not just "random" people, but department heads in some pretty heavy hitting universities and groups. It's not like I was quoting the president of the local Sierra Club Chapter at the Southwest Oklahoma Community College of the deaf and blind.

Stanford. Princeton. The United Nations Environment Program.

Not exactly small time here you know? And that's just a sampling of what I could find after a brief net search. So now you want to pick and choose what information and sources you think are relevant? And dismiss those that you feel are out there? Who is the denier now?

Get off your high horse with the bull**** of name calling. You've been called out on the predictions, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that some fairly influential members of the environmental movement are making some pretty serious claims. And even back peddling on some. It's not random comments made, it's official papers, books and predictions that have not come to pass.

And last, but not least, you refuse to answer the basic question of who to trust when it comes to the end result of climate change. Why? Because you and your ilk can't answer the question. Try saying the words "I really don't know" for a change instead of being a child and continually pointing to that idiotic website that does not even remotely apply to me.

Grow up, admit the things you don't know and try to be rational about the whole thing.

Impressive.

 

[BartW]

Typical. I bring points from not just "random" people, but department heads in some pretty heavy hitting universities and groups. It's not like I was quoting the president of the local Sierra Club Chapter at the Southwest Oklahoma Community College of the deaf and blind.

Stanford. Princeton. The United Nations Environment Program.

Not exactly small time here you know? And that's just a sampling of what I could find after a brief net search. So now you want to pick and choose what information and sources you think are relevant? And dismiss those that you feel are out there? Who is the denier now?

Get off your high horse with the bull**** of name calling. You've been called out on the predictions, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that some fairly influential members of the environmental movement are making some pretty serious claims. And even back peddling on some. It's not random comments made, it's official papers, books and predictions that have not come to pass.

And last, but not least, you refuse to answer the basic question of who to trust when it comes to the end result of climate change. Why? Because you and your ilk can't answer the question. Try saying the words "I really don't know" for a change instead of being a child and continually pointing to that idiotic website that does not even remotely apply to me.

Grow up, admit the things you don't know and try to be rational about the whole thing.

Apples and oranges. Give us one example of a phony environmental doomsday prophecy trumpeted by the majority (or even significant minority) of the scientific community. Try

 

[MG1968]

Apples and oranges. Give us one example of a phony environmental doomsday prophecy trumpeted by the majority (or even significant minority) of the scientific community. Try

So if there is no inevitable environmental doomsday, why is there so much handwringing on your part?

 

[BartW]

That is pretty funny. It appears he didn't comprehend what his findings would infer. Nick Lewis used the Max Planck aerosol study to model climate sensitivity and found an upper bound of 1.8C(17-83%) and not above 2C and well below the AR5 upper bound of 4.5C.

The implications for climate sensitivity of Bjorn Stevens’ new aerosol forcing paper « Climate Audit

So they took the lowest result in the literature, plugged in a new aerosol value, and arrived at a slightly lower calculation. Big whoop.

 

[Sandvol]

So they took the lowest result in the literature, plugged in a new aerosol value, and arrived at a slightly lower calculation. Big whoop.

It is funny because they were probably trying to understand why the temperature rise hasn't fit their model not realizing the implication of their findings. It is a big whoop. The Greenhouse Gas Model is way over weighted.

 

[Sandvol]

So if there is no inevitable environmental doomsday, why is there so much handwringing on your part?

Daniel Kaffee strikes again! "You're damn right I ordered that Code Red!"

 

[BartW]

It is funny because they were probably trying to understand why the temperature rise hasn't fit their model not realizing the implication of their findings. It is a big whoop. The Greenhouse Gas Model is way over weighted.

It's funny because you really have no idea what you're talking about. Bjorn Stevens' statement nicely summarizes what we've been saying all along.

I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on this SandVol. Aren't water restrictions an affront to free markets? We can't deplete God's resources so we should go balls to the wall right? And do you think the drought data is fabricated by liberal scientists in an attempt grow government?

Dinosaur Comics is great.

We may think that argument is ridiculous but I'll have to wait to see what SandVol says. He's made it pretty clear in the past that he thinks the government shouldn't interfere with the free market under any circumstance... because an unchecked free market can solve any problem, right?

Still awaiting your thoughts...

 

[Sandvol]

It's funny because you really have no idea what you're talking about. Bjorn Stevens' statement nicely summarizes what we've been saying all along.

Bjorn Steven's statement is irrelevant. His study stands on its own and doesn't require any equivocating. Lewis used the aerosol forcing data from Steven's study. Case closed.

 

[Sandvol]

Still awaiting your thoughts...

It's municipal water.

 

[BartW]

It's municipal water.

Oh so it's not a big deal as long as the government is only targeting citizens and not businesses? It's a slippery slope man... they're takin' our freedoms!!

But seriously, how do you foresee the future of water rights and restrictions?

 

[Sandvol]

Oh so it's not a big deal as long as the government is only targeting citizens and not businesses? It's a slippery slope man... they're takin' our freedoms!!

But seriously, how do you foresee the future of water rights and restrictions?

If private enterprise owned the water they would have found solutions for this a long time ago. That is the problem with governments-they are always the last bad actors.

 

[BartW]

If private enterprise owned the water they would have found solutions for this a long time ago. That is the problem with governments-they are always the last bad actors.

Yeah, water isn't considered a fundamental human right or anything. Let's give it all to Nestle! That will go over well.

Well what's done is done. Given our present state, what would be your solution to increasing freshwater scarcity moving forward?

 

[Grand Vol]

Apples and oranges. Give us one example of a phony environmental doomsday prophecy trumpeted by the majority (or even significant minority) of the scientific community. Try

So you don't have an answer to the base question and continue avoiding it.

That's all you needed to say.

 

[1972 Grad]

Yeah, water isn't considered a fundamental human right or anything. Let's give it all to Nestle! That will go over well.

Well what's done is done. Given our present state, what would be your solution to increasing freshwater scarcity moving forward?

Move.