The Uninhabitable Earth

[flacaltenn]

WHY isn't this runaway circus train on the tracks anymore? Because, science doesn't appreciate being used and abused. Look at those 2 polling graphs again.. The bar charts aren't any more intimidating than reading a Pew Poll..,. YOU can even do it...,.,

Show us a decrease in the number of climate scientists that agree with the IPCC conclusions.

Show us an increase in the number of papers challenging those conclusions.

We have.. Repeatedly.. But it's not a NY Times story.. All of the most important parameters in projecting future CO2 forcing effects have been CONSISTENTLY REVISED DOWNWARD over 30 years.. We've posted charts of consensus on various forms of "climate sensitivity numbers" that have been cut by almost 70% over that time period for example.. I just posted a the best survey of climate scientists saying that the general public is being misled about scientific estimates and conclusions for GW/CC...

Now answer the question.. Is 4degC anomaly in 2100 a CURRENT "consensus" estimate? if so --

A) Where did you get it?

B) What is the RANGE on that estimate?

C) How much of that anomaly depends on the super hyped positive feedback, runaway acceleration catastrophic elements of UNSETTLED GW science??

 

[Crick]

WHY isn't this runaway circus train on the tracks anymore? Because, science doesn't appreciate being used and abused. Look at those 2 polling graphs again.. The bar charts aren't any more intimidating than reading a Pew Poll..,. YOU can even do it...,.,

Show us a decrease in the number of climate scientists that agree with the IPCC conclusions.

Show us an increase in the number of papers challenging those conclusions.

We have.. Repeatedly.. But it's not a NY Times story.. All of the most important parameters in projecting future CO2 forcing effects have been CONSISTENTLY REVISED DOWNWARD over 30 years.. We've posted charts of consensus on various forms of "climate sensitivity numbers" that have been cut by almost 70% over that time period for example.. I just posted a the best survey of climate scientists saying that the general public is being misled about scientific estimates and conclusions for GW/CC...

Now answer the question.. Is 4degC anomaly in 2100 a CURRENT "consensus" estimate? if so --

A) Where did you get it?

B) What is the RANGE on that estimate?

C) How much of that anomaly depends on the super hyped positive feedback, runaway acceleration catastrophic elements of UNSETTLED GW science??

I got it from an interview with Ross Gelbspan, the author of "The Heat is On". I haven't the faintest idea what the range of that estimate might be. My statement, in answer to your query what the temperature would be in 2100 was "It will probably be +4C". It is my current opinion. If it had come from a scientific study, I would have given you the source. And I will always take the opinions of actual climate scientists performing actual science and making actual climate sensitivity calculations over your self-righteous and uninformed opinions on any of these topics.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a very good chance it will be +4C.

So, basically, the temperature difference between 8am and 10am.

Don't be stupid.

Putting a mean value change into perspective along with it's natural variance -- is NEVER stupid.. On any given day in my area -- the temps will be +/- 10DegF from "normal".. The year to year variance in the ARCTIC is even higher, because the overall sensitivities to forcings is HIGHER in that unique climate.

So the 0.6DegC change "due to Global Warming" in YOUR lifetime -- when put in THAT perspective -- is not threatening a damn thing.. Not penguins, not oak trees, not Miami or Portland.

I've never said that man-made CO2 emissions have no effect on the GMASTemperature. I've only said that it's highly unlikely that ANY of the CATASTROPHIC tenets of GW theory are plausible. The claims that the Earth's climate system is SO DAMN unstable -- that a change of just 2.5% of a rare gas in the whole of the carbon cycle is gonna trigger IRREVERSIBLE planetary destruction..

And I also doubt the hype of the paleo climate studies finding that our little 0.9degC blip is "unprecedented" in the past 100,000 years. Those studies never had the data confidence to MAKE those claims.

So if the TOTAL ANOMALY by 2100 is just 2DegC --- there's NO FUCKING SOCIETAL PLANETARY EMERGENCY... And books like the one you're hawking in THIS thread are gonna be comedy gold by 2100, when the energy systems are totally different and the next Ice Age is knocking on the door..

 

[fncceo]

When religious zealots are questioned about the inconsistencies in or lack of evidence to support their religious beliefs, they will immediately begin reciting what they were taught in their religious education.

When they exhaust their memorized responses, instead of addressing the questions, they will immediately launch attacks on the questioners.

They will question their intelligence, they will label them unbelievers or heretics, they will prognosticate doom on their head or their souls for failing to recognize what the true believers can see very clearly (but are unable to explain or support with facts).

 

[flacaltenn]

WHY isn't this runaway circus train on the tracks anymore? Because, science doesn't appreciate being used and abused. Look at those 2 polling graphs again.. The bar charts aren't any more intimidating than reading a Pew Poll..,. YOU can even do it...,.,

Show us a decrease in the number of climate scientists that agree with the IPCC conclusions.

Show us an increase in the number of papers challenging those conclusions.

We have.. Repeatedly.. But it's not a NY Times story.. All of the most important parameters in projecting future CO2 forcing effects have been CONSISTENTLY REVISED DOWNWARD over 30 years.. We've posted charts of consensus on various forms of "climate sensitivity numbers" that have been cut by almost 70% over that time period for example.. I just posted a the best survey of climate scientists saying that the general public is being misled about scientific estimates and conclusions for GW/CC...

Now answer the question.. Is 4degC anomaly in 2100 a CURRENT "consensus" estimate? if so --

A) Where did you get it?

B) What is the RANGE on that estimate?

C) How much of that anomaly depends on the super hyped positive feedback, runaway acceleration catastrophic elements of UNSETTLED GW science??

I got it from an interview with Ross Gelbspan, the author of "The Heat is On". I haven't the faintest idea what the range of that estimate might be. My statement, in answer to your query what the temperature would be in 2100 was "It will probably be +4C". It is my current opinion. If it had come from a scientific study, I would have given you the source. And I will always take the opinions of actual climate scientists performing actual science and making actual climate sensitivity calculations over your self-righteous and uninformed opinions on any of these topics.

Estimates like that are typically +/- 50%.. It's USELESS to squabble over if it did NOT come from a primary science source. Because FOR SURE, journalists will always be fed the WORST CASE NUMBER.. And that's how this crappy circus got started back in the 1980s when the ERROR BARS of the estimates were +/- 100% of 6 or 8DegC by 2100...

So why are you panicked if you can not EVEN answer the most fundamental "consensus" question on GW?? Isn't that kind of moronic behavior to crap your britches and bitch about consensus when you don't even KNOW the "consensus" on temperature predictions???

 

[flacaltenn]

Now answer the question.. Is 4degC anomaly in 2100 a CURRENT "consensus" estimate? if so --

A) Where did you get it?

B) What is the RANGE on that estimate?

C) How much of that anomaly depends on the super hyped positive feedback, runaway acceleration catastrophic elements of UNSETTLED GW science??

I screwed up here and left out the MOST important question you should ask yourself when some journalist tosses a planetary heating figure at you. That is -- if you aren't just a brainless dupe...

Now answer the question.. Is 4degC anomaly in 2100 a CURRENT "consensus" estimate? if so --

A) Where did you get it?

B) What is the RANGE on that estimate?

C) How much of that anomaly depends on the super hyped positive feedback, runaway acceleration catastrophic elements of UNSETTLED GW science??

D) What human emissions scenario does this estimate use?? Is it accelerating log-wise, linear, flat or decreasing?

Any estimate of future temperatures WITHOUT these explanations is pure bovine scatology and you're USELESS to make any conclusions about an "UNHABITABLE EARTH" without them..

Seems you've wasted a lot of time reading horror fictions when you COULD BE actually learning something..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WHY isn't this runaway circus train on the tracks anymore? Because, science doesn't appreciate being used and abused. Look at those 2 polling graphs again.. The bar charts aren't any more intimidating than reading a Pew Poll..,. YOU can even do it...,.,

Show us a decrease in the number of climate scientists that agree with the IPCC conclusions.

Show us an increase in the number of papers challenging those conclusions.

We have.. Repeatedly.. But it's not a NY Times story.. All of the most important parameters in projecting future CO2 forcing effects have been CONSISTENTLY REVISED DOWNWARD over 30 years.. We've posted charts of consensus on various forms of "climate sensitivity numbers" that have been cut by almost 70% over that time period for example.. I just posted a the best survey of climate scientists saying that the general public is being misled about scientific estimates and conclusions for GW/CC...

Now answer the question.. Is 4degC anomaly in 2100 a CURRENT "consensus" estimate? if so --

A) Where did you get it?

B) What is the RANGE on that estimate?

C) How much of that anomaly depends on the super hyped positive feedback, runaway acceleration catastrophic elements of UNSETTLED GW science??

I got it from an interview with Ross Gelbspan, the author of "The Heat is On". I haven't the faintest idea what the range of that estimate might be. My statement, in answer to your query what the temperature would be in 2100 was "It will probably be +4C". It is my current opinion. If it had come from a scientific study, I would have given you the source. And I will always take the opinions of actual climate scientists performing actual science and making actual climate sensitivity calculations over your self-righteous and uninformed opinions on any of these topics.

Ohhh, so there is no science behind these alarmist projections

 

[Crick]

There's a very good chance it will be +4C.

So, basically, the temperature difference between 8am and 10am.

Don't be stupid.

Putting a mean value change into perspective along with it's natural variance -- is NEVER stupid..

My comment was directed at fncceo who implied that a global average change equivalent to the change possible in a single day was trivial. That was stupid.

On any given day in my area -- the temps will be +/- 10DegF from "normal".. The year to year variance in the ARCTIC is even higher, because the overall sensitivities to forcings is HIGHER in that unique climate.

Who cares? That observation is irrelevant. If you'd paid a little more attention you might have understood the actual thread of conversation.

So the 0.6DegC change "due to Global Warming" in YOUR lifetime -- when put in THAT perspective -- is not threatening a damn thing.. Not penguins, not oak trees, not Miami or Portland.

My lifetime? You know when I'm going to die? My response to your query was that the temperature increase by 2100 (at which time I will be long in my grave) was very likely to be +4C which was intended to mean +4C since the Industrial Revolution. This would be the same baseline used by the IPCC and all of the intergovernmental agreements such as in Paris attempting to maintain less than +1.5C and warning that +2C could be catastrophic. But, so far, none of the deniers who've commented on this value seem to have understood that. I guess I will have to step down the expected knowledge level of my intended arguments when posting here.

I've never said that man-made CO2 emissions have no effect on the GMASTemperature. I've only said that it's highly unlikely that ANY of the CATASTROPHIC tenets of GW theory are plausible. The claims that the Earth's climate system is SO DAMN unstable -- that a change of just 2.5% of a rare gas in the whole of the carbon cycle is gonna trigger IRREVERSIBLE planetary destruction..

What rare gas has increased by 2.5%? CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. That is an increase of almost 47%. Methane has gone from 700 ppb to 1700 ppb, an increase of 143% [NOTE, I fucked these two values up in my original post and it was caught by Crusader Frank]

And I also doubt the hype of the paleo climate studies finding that our little 0.9degC blip is "unprecedented" in the past 100,000 years. Those studies never had the data confidence to MAKE those claims.

Which would mean you don't have the confidence to claim it has happened before. But, as I have stated before, you can only say that [paleo temp data lack the resolution to see a pulse the size of current warming] if you assume that the current warming trend is going to end and return to pre-industrial levels within the next century, something NO scientist ANYWHERE expects to happen.

So if the TOTAL ANOMALY by 2100 is just 2DegC --- there's NO FUCKING SOCIETAL PLANETARY EMERGENCY... And books like the one you're hawking in THIS thread are gonna be comedy gold by 2100, when the energy systems are totally different and the next Ice Age is knocking on the door..

You keep telling yourself that. And if you're patting yourself on the back for not living within, say, ten feet of sea level, take a pause to make some room for the millions of people who do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's a very good chance it will be +4C.

So, basically, the temperature difference between 8am and 10am.

Don't be stupid.

Putting a mean value change into perspective along with it's natural variance -- is NEVER stupid..

My comment was directed at fncceo who implied that a global average change equivalent to the change possible in a single day was trivial. That was stupid.

On any given day in my area -- the temps will be +/- 10DegF from "normal".. The year to year variance in the ARCTIC is even higher, because the overall sensitivities to forcings is HIGHER in that unique climate.

Who cares? That observation is irrelevant. If you'd paid a little more attention you might have understood the actual thread of conversation.

So the 0.6DegC change "due to Global Warming" in YOUR lifetime -- when put in THAT perspective -- is not threatening a damn thing.. Not penguins, not oak trees, not Miami or Portland.

My lifetime? You know when I'm going to die? My response to your query was that the temperature increase by 2100 (at which time I will be long in my grave) was very likely to be +4C which was intended to mean +4C since the Industrial Revolution. This would be the same baseline used by the IPCC and all of the intergovernmental agreements such as in Paris attempting to maintain less than +1.5C and warning that +2C could be catastrophic. But, so far, none of the deniers who've commented on this value seem to have understood that. I guess I will have to step down the expected knowledge level of my intended arguments when posting here.

I've never said that man-made CO2 emissions have no effect on the GMASTemperature. I've only said that it's highly unlikely that ANY of the CATASTROPHIC tenets of GW theory are plausible. The claims that the Earth's climate system is SO DAMN unstable -- that a change of just 2.5% of a rare gas in the whole of the carbon cycle is gonna trigger IRREVERSIBLE planetary destruction..

What rare gas has increased by 2.5%? CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. That is an increase of almost 147%. Methane has gone from 700 ppb to 1700 ppb, an increase of 243%

And I also doubt the hype of the paleo climate studies finding that our little 0.9degC blip is "unprecedented" in the past 100,000 years. Those studies never had the data confidence to MAKE those claims.

Which would mean you don't have the confidence to claim it has happened before. But, as I have stated before, you can only say that [paleo temp data lack the resolution to see a pulse the size of current warming] if you assume that the current warming trend is going to end and return to pre-industrial levels within the next century, something NO scientist ANYWHERE expects to happen.

So if the TOTAL ANOMALY by 2100 is just 2DegC --- there's NO FUCKING SOCIETAL PLANETARY EMERGENCY... And books like the one you're hawking in THIS thread are gonna be comedy gold by 2100, when the energy systems are totally different and the next Ice Age is knocking on the door..

You keep telling yourself that. And if you're patting yourself on the back for not living within, say, ten feet of sea level, take a pause to make some room for the millions of people who do.

Crick! Holy fucking increase Batman! What's the lab work show happening to temperature with those increases??

China. Have you chained yourself to the Chinese Embassy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's a very good chance it will be +4C.

So, basically, the temperature difference between 8am and 10am.

Don't be stupid.

Putting a mean value change into perspective along with it's natural variance -- is NEVER stupid..

My comment was directed at fncceo who implied that a global average change equivalent to the change possible in a single day was trivial. That was stupid.

On any given day in my area -- the temps will be +/- 10DegF from "normal".. The year to year variance in the ARCTIC is even higher, because the overall sensitivities to forcings is HIGHER in that unique climate.

Who cares? That observation is irrelevant. If you'd paid a little more attention you might have understood the actual thread of conversation.

So the 0.6DegC change "due to Global Warming" in YOUR lifetime -- when put in THAT perspective -- is not threatening a damn thing.. Not penguins, not oak trees, not Miami or Portland.

My lifetime? You know when I'm going to die? My response to your query was that the temperature increase by 2100 (at which time I will be long in my grave) was very likely to be +4C which was intended to mean +4C since the Industrial Revolution. This would be the same baseline used by the IPCC and all of the intergovernmental agreements such as in Paris attempting to maintain less than +1.5C and warning that +2C could be catastrophic. But, so far, none of the deniers who've commented on this value seem to have understood that. I guess I will have to step down the expected knowledge level of my intended arguments when posting here.

I've never said that man-made CO2 emissions have no effect on the GMASTemperature. I've only said that it's highly unlikely that ANY of the CATASTROPHIC tenets of GW theory are plausible. The claims that the Earth's climate system is SO DAMN unstable -- that a change of just 2.5% of a rare gas in the whole of the carbon cycle is gonna trigger IRREVERSIBLE planetary destruction..

What rare gas has increased by 2.5%? CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. That is an increase of almost 147%. Methane has gone from 700 ppb to 1700 ppb, an increase of 243%

And I also doubt the hype of the paleo climate studies finding that our little 0.9degC blip is "unprecedented" in the past 100,000 years. Those studies never had the data confidence to MAKE those claims.

Which would mean you don't have the confidence to claim it has happened before. But, as I have stated before, you can only say that [paleo temp data lack the resolution to see a pulse the size of current warming] if you assume that the current warming trend is going to end and return to pre-industrial levels within the next century, something NO scientist ANYWHERE expects to happen.

So if the TOTAL ANOMALY by 2100 is just 2DegC --- there's NO FUCKING SOCIETAL PLANETARY EMERGENCY... And books like the one you're hawking in THIS thread are gonna be comedy gold by 2100, when the energy systems are totally different and the next Ice Age is knocking on the door..

You keep telling yourself that. And if you're patting yourself on the back for not living within, say, ten feet of sea level, take a pause to make some room for the millions of people who do.

411-280=131.

What percent of 280 is 131?

 

[Crick]

Vox is about as far left as one can go....that's why. The fact that you would expect anyone other than a leftard to take the article you posted seriously is an indictment of just how delusional you are. David Wallace -Wells is a UN lackey and proponent of U.N Agenda 21. Nuff said on that issue.

Vox does lean to the left, but not particularly far at all. They lean less to the left then Fox does to the right.

And David Wallace-Wells has no association with the UN whatsoever. He is simply an author.

 

[Crick]

What percent of 280 is 131?

I will admit it Frank, you caught me. CO2 has increased by 47% while methane has increased by 143%. I guess 2.5% was a good estimate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What percent of 280 is 131?

I will admit it Frank, you caught me. CO2 has increased by 47% while methane has increased by 143%. I guess 2.5% was a good estimate.

It wasnt a gotcha.

 

[Crick]

Looks like one to me. What do you think it was?

BTW, I corrected the original post but noted that I had fucked up the original values and that you had caught it.

 

[SSDD]

He "thinks" he "feels" and like you, he doesn't have the first piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....like you, he is easily fooled...

 

[Crick]

Who are you talking about troll?

 

[SSDD]

Who are you talking about troll?

You posted that ridiculous article...who do you think I was talking to?

 

[Unkotare]

Everyone who is in a panic over this should definitely leave the earth right away and relieve some of the strain. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[Dale Smith]

Vox is about as far left as one can go....that's why. The fact that you would expect anyone other than a leftard to take the article you posted seriously is an indictment of just how delusional you are. David Wallace -Wells is a UN lackey and proponent of U.N Agenda 21. Nuff said on that issue.

Vox does lean to the left, but not particularly far at all. They lean less to the left then Fox does to the right.

And David Wallace-Wells has no association with the UN whatsoever. He is simply an author.

Dude, go pull someone else's legs, mine are long enough as it is.

 

[Crick]

Dude, go find someone that cares about your insane paranoia.