global warming summit in France

[Billy_Bob]

No it is not those things.

Empirical evidence says otherwise.. You have not shown any empirical evidence to support your premise.

SO why in the lat 450 million years have we not death spiraled out of control when we rose 8-12 deg C?

Misleading: In post 51 you made it say 8-12 degrees by going from the bottom to the top of the graph, not from the average level.

By practical I mean it is the easiest way to preserve humanity, even if that way is blocked. Sorry for the confusion there.

As far as it being a wild guess, please read my quote in post 56.

Fear-mongering? Then why did every nation and nearly every MIT scientist support it? Check out MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials . There are 40 courses on global warming. It is not a fraud. If a nation knew it wasn't true they could have not signed and it is unlikely we would attack or send tariffs against them. As a matter of fact they might have an easier time developing. In fact we'd all do worse because we'd have no hope. Fighting climate change is hope not fear.

Name one level it is wrong at.

Not one of your sources defines mans contribution or what CO2 has done to temperature trends. This means they have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support them and that the supposition is pure conjecture...

The word of the day is CONTEXT! IF you read their works, there is little scientific context but loads of conjecture based on MODELS. The models they used have shown no predictive powers. This means they have failed and the assumptions made from them can not be correct.

If you have a model that says your bank account will grow by 20% and you loose 20% do you continue to follow the models assumptions?

Speaking of misleading, 2 deg C is well within the range of natural variability and will not result in any catastrophic consequences never before seen by the earth.

 

[catatomic]

Oh, context. OK-? Seem to have something right here.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-sc...and-policy-spring-2008/lecture-notes/lec4.pdf

Pg. 6 of 17.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh, context. OK-? Seem to have something right here.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-sc...and-policy-spring-2008/lecture-notes/lec4.pdf

Pg. 6 of 17.

I have seen their PPT presentation. Tell me where they find the CO2 residency time to be 1,000 years. Current research has lowered that number to below 40 years. Much of their supposition is incorrect. Kieth Briffa is one of the signatory's and one of the major players in climate alarmism, journal gate keeping, etc... Your link just lost all credibility as anything scientific.

 

[MarathonMike]

It fails at the most fundamental level of statistics. If you cannot isolate i.e. PROVE the effect of the ONE independent variable in the insanely complex set of variables that drive global air temperature, then you CANNOT prove human caused global warming. I don't care what a bunch of MIT scientists that are scared for their jobs have to say about it. They are wrong and they know they are wrong.

 

[catatomic]

So I looked at a page at Yale and one at Princeton about CO2 residency time. Thank you for expanding my mind a little bit.

Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Yale Climate Connections

"Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed." That is fightable, IMO.

"So while a good portion of warming attributable to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions would be removed from the atmosphere in a few decades if emissions were somehow ceased immediately, about 10 percent will continue warming Earth for eons to come."

https://www.princeton.edu/~lam/TauL1b.pdf

"There exists no observation data to validate this value. In fact, it is not possible to experimentally measure the value of τL (and the claim of its constancy) unless reliable data taken over many centuries (with constant emission rate) are available. τL ≈ 400 years is the consensus value of."

This can only be worse, and we don't know the value, and that makes it all the more important to fight global warming now. Am I right?

 

[catatomic]

It fails at the most fundamental level of statistics. If you cannot isolate i.e. PROVE the effect of the ONE independent variable in the insanely complex set of variables that drive global air temperature, then you CANNOT prove human caused global warming. I don't care what a bunch of MIT scientists that are scared for their jobs have to say about it. They are wrong and they know they are wrong.

If you would read my last post about CO2 residency time, they are respecting it as science. They just can't measure the value yet and want to play it safe. My guess is that perhaps these values are what result in the varied models.

 

[catatomic]

Hold on; this is interesting! Give me a chance to read about CO2 residence time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Q: Do you believe that any temperature forcing of a couple degrees will lead to catastrophic destruction of the climate system?

A: I believe it would be wise to start curbing social security now, so that for instance those people who will retire will get “the black and white TV instead of the color TV.” It puts us on a much sounder footing… but we can survive without doing it yet. It just costs us several trillions of dollars more and they convince us we are fine.

So with the 2 degrees “trigger”: It was sound advice for creating the best scenario to destroy climate change, but not the limit of how far we can push ourselves and survive.

I looked at “tipping point” in Wikipedia and your google query for the first 5 pages, which were:

Scientists: Global Warming Likely to Surpass 2°C Target

Our Planet Is Going to Blow Past the "Two Degrees" Climate Limit

Buckle Up: Scientists Warn of Dozens of Global Warming Tipping Points That Could Trigger Natural Disasters

What happens if we overshoot the two degree target for limiting global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists cite ‘irreversible’ effects of climate change, warn of greater risks unless carbon emissions are cut

This last one says what I’m thinking: “It’s not too late, but the longer you wait, the more expensive it gets,” Gary Yohe, a Wesleyan University professor who also participated in the drafting of the report, said in an interview.

I think it is exactly that: we’ve thrown out sane policy, now we are just grasping at straws. Now would you please look at my link?

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-sc...nd-policy-spring-2008/lecture-notes/lec16.pdf

As per your bolded points, I do not understand them and could not locate them online: please explain.

Below is a graph of historical temperatures over the recent 450 million years. IF there was/is a 2 deg C tipping point why haven't we gone into a death spiral before now?
View attachment 56362

LOL. No wonder you failed your GED, Silly Billy. That graph is for the last 450,000 years, not the last 450 million.

Note that at no other time has the CO2 level been above about 300 ppm. And if you also gave the CH4 levels, you would see there highest level during this time was about 800 ppb. At present the CO2 level is over 400 ppm, and the CH4 level is over 1800 ppb.

Now this year is going to be the warmest on record. And we are blowing right by the 1 degree C increase. As we will for the 2 degree C increase even if we stop putting GHGs into the atmosphere right now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It fails at the most fundamental level of statistics. If you cannot isolate i.e. PROVE the effect of the ONE independent variable in the insanely complex set of variables that drive global air temperature, then you CANNOT prove human caused global warming. I don't care what a bunch of MIT scientists that are scared for their jobs have to say about it. They are wrong and they know they are wrong.

MIT on climate change = LOL

 

[jc456]

I might want to kill myself if I don't post something about the global warming summit. I have studied climate change. I have particularly studied the climate models. The temperature is definitely rising, definitely almost all human caused, it is catastrophic, and the best result of the France conference will be half enough to stop the worst effects.

I feel I could strongly argue for the importance of making this meeting a success. Talk to me.

Definitely? Based on what? Post up some evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q: Do you believe that any temperature forcing of a couple degrees will lead to catastrophic destruction of the climate system?

A: I believe it would be wise to start curbing social security now, so that for instance those people who will retire will get “the black and white TV instead of the color TV.” It puts us on a much sounder footing… but we can survive without doing it yet. It just costs us several trillions of dollars more and they convince us we are fine.

So with the 2 degrees “trigger”: It was sound advice for creating the best scenario to destroy climate change, but not the limit of how far we can push ourselves and survive.

I looked at “tipping point” in Wikipedia and your google query for the first 5 pages, which were:

Scientists: Global Warming Likely to Surpass 2°C Target

Our Planet Is Going to Blow Past the "Two Degrees" Climate Limit

Buckle Up: Scientists Warn of Dozens of Global Warming Tipping Points That Could Trigger Natural Disasters

What happens if we overshoot the two degree target for limiting global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists cite ‘irreversible’ effects of climate change, warn of greater risks unless carbon emissions are cut

This last one says what I’m thinking: “It’s not too late, but the longer you wait, the more expensive it gets,” Gary Yohe, a Wesleyan University professor who also participated in the drafting of the report, said in an interview.

I think it is exactly that: we’ve thrown out sane policy, now we are just grasping at straws. Now would you please look at my link?

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-sc...nd-policy-spring-2008/lecture-notes/lec16.pdf

As per your bolded points, I do not understand them and could not locate them online: please explain.

Below is a graph of historical temperatures over the recent 450 million years. IF there was/is a 2 deg C tipping point why haven't we gone into a death spiral before now?
View attachment 56362

LOL. No wonder you failed your GED, Silly Billy. That graph is for the last 450,000 years, not the last 450 million.

Note that at no other time has the CO2 level been above about 300 ppm. And if you also gave the CH4 levels, you would see there highest level during this time was about 800 ppb. At present the CO2 level is over 400 ppm, and the CH4 level is over 1800 ppb.

Now this year is going to be the warmest on record. And we are blowing right by the 1 degree C increase. As we will for the 2 degree C increase even if we stop putting GHGs into the atmosphere right now.

It could be 450 billion years, at no point in the chart does CO2 drive temperature.

Not one time

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hold on; this is interesting! Give me a chance to read about CO2 residence time.

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is …. 33 years?

33 years is the average of all but one study. The outlier can be thrown out as it has grossly exaggerated the time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankie boy, your ignorance is monumental. Several times in the geological history of this planet, GHGs have driven a very rapid rise in temperatures. You can start with the P-T event if you really care to learn something.

 

[catatomic]

It is interesting that I found an IPCC report where they included CO2 residency times: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm Now we know that they have taken this into consideration.

I might want to kill myself if I don't post something about the global warming summit. I have studied climate change. I have particularly studied the climate models. The temperature is definitely rising, definitely almost all human caused, it is catastrophic, and the best result of the France conference will be half enough to stop the worst effects.

I feel I could strongly argue for the importance of making this meeting a success. Talk to me.

Definitely? Based on what? Post up some evidence.

I have kept posting evidence and here is some of it again:

If you go to MIT Lecture Notes | Global Climate Change: Economics, Science, and Policy | Sloan School of Management | MIT OpenCourseWare ,

then follow the Climate lectures from I to V, I have read them and I understand them and like I said I feel I could argue them very well. I have summarized some of them in this thread.

 

[catatomic]

BillyBob, the only sense I can make of your chart is that these two groups measured different things. If it was truly like that, I can't see anyone at all believing any of it.

Keep in mind that these bars should have low range and high range too.

Also, all the graphs are from 1992 or earlier except the IPCC one from 2007!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frankie boy, your ignorance is monumental. Several times in the geological history of this planet, GHGs have driven a very rapid rise in temperatures. You can start with the P-T event if you really care to learn something.

Wrong again...

You thrive on being wrong!

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie boy, your ignorance is monumental. Several times in the geological history of this planet, GHGs have driven a very rapid rise in temperatures. You can start with the P-T event if you really care to learn something.

That's on the "Because I say so" method. The real scientific evidence, the chart that compares side by side temperature and CO2, does not agree with this "Theory" of yours

 

[Billy_Bob]

BillyBob, the only sense I can make of your chart is that these two groups measured different things. If it was truly like that, I can't see anyone at all believing any of it.

Keep in mind that these bars should have low range and high range too.

Also, all the graphs are from 1992 or earlier except the IPCC one from 2007!

The bar graph is of differing papers which calculated residency time. They average about 12.7 years if you throw out the outlier. IF you read the paper I linked to they assume the residency time is 33 years by matching empirical evidence with the models and spiting the difference which runs in line with Maun Aloa readings. I agree that there should be MOE..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Point is this, With short residency time and multiple sinks that are sucking up the CO2, there has been no warming for almost 19 years and the increase is not causing a response of increased temperature. The CO2 - Water Vapor positive forcing link does not exist by empirical observed evidence. The AGW most critical hypothesis fails empirical review.

 

[catatomic]

I'm of the opinion that the average of what we don't know is something we don't know. I'm taking a nap. It will be fun to discuss this further.