How much is too much

Threegoofs said:

I find it funny that a guy who posts every frickin day for years uses a sentence like 'I believe that the IPCC has revised its ECS estimate downward to 2 degrees'.

I *believe* the IPCC is clear, and I certainly believe he's been schooled on this multiple times!

Click to expand...

Re: My point that it's not worth debating climate deniers. Like intelligent design believers, aether believers, geocentrists, flat earthers, and other fringe crackpots, they don't care what the truth is. You can hit them over the head again and again and again with truth, an they'll sit back, take it, and then, with a straight face, ask you what evidence is for AGW again. There's no point debating fanatics.

calamity said:

I believe it's real and a problem, but I know there is nothing we can do about it without making life worse for billions of people. So, it's a choice, Live with the effects of AGW or cut energy use and slowly starve out a few billion people.

Click to expand...

This is a ludicrous defense of doing nothing. You do realize that the first communities that will be absolutely devastated by global warming are the poorest in China, India, African nations, and pretty much everyone you could conceivably be talking about with regards to "billions of people." (Well, not counting the island communities that have already been devastated, or the places that have been devastated by flooding and historic storms). What makes this a doubly unintelligent position is that we aren't talking about just the billions alive today, we're talking about every human being that is or would have come into existence over the next 10,000 years. The billions of humans that will die now and for the next 10,000 years do to starvation, terrorism and wars over resources, and if we really don't do anything, we probably will end human civilization.

And why, so for the next twenty years the world can all have iPhones for the cheapest price?

FieldTheorist said:

Re: My point that it's not worth debating climate deniers. Like intelligent design believers, aether believers, geocentrists, flat earthers, and other fringe crackpots, they don't care what the truth is. You can hit them over the head again and again and again with truth, an they'll sit back, take it, and then, with a straight face, ask you what evidence is for AGW again. There's no point debating fanatics.




This is a ludicrous defense of doing nothing. You do realize that the first communities that will be absolutely devastated by global warming are the poorest in China, India, African nations, and pretty much everyone you could conceivably be talking about with regards to "billions of people." (Well, not counting the island communities that have already been devastated, or the places that have been devastated by flooding and historic storms). What makes this a doubly unintelligent position is that we aren't talking about just the billions alive today, we're talking about every human being that is or would have come into existence over the next 10,000 years. The billions of humans that will die now and for the next 10,000 years do to starvation, terrorism and wars over resources, and if we really don't do anything, we probably will end human civilization.

And why, so for the next twenty years the world can all have iPhones for the cheapest price?

Click to expand...

Please see #22 on Oxford's August hit parade. Not bad for a nine-year-old paper.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during August 2016[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org › ... › Astronomy & GeophysicsAstronomy & Geophysics


Sep 6, 2016 - Most-Read Articles during August 2016. Most-read ... The earthquake deformation cycle A&G (2016) 57 (4): 4.20-4.26 .... Henrik Svensmark.

Threegoofs said:

Except...all the warming!

Click to expand...

Don't believe your lying eyes, Threegoofs! The hottest months on record, the historically significant flooding in Louisiana, the freakish el Nino's and the tropical storms that hit New York and New Jersey, the monsoons that have hit Asia --they're all lies! The fact that every year is literally the hottest on record? All lies!

Jack Hays said:

Please see #22 on Oxford's August hit parade. Not bad for a nine-year-old paper.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during August 2016[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org › ... › Astronomy & GeophysicsAstronomy & Geophysics


Sep 6, 2016 - Most-Read Articles during August 2016. Most-read ... The earthquake deformation cycle A&G (2016) 57 (4): 4.20-4.26 .... Henrik Svensmark.

Click to expand...

I don't care what your erroneous opinion is, Jack, and no one else should, either. You can dress up your opinions with all of the misinformation and pseudoscientific red-herrings you like. You're wrong, your sources are wrong, and it is either the case that 98% of climate scientists don't agree with your sources or else you don't even understand your sources well enough to even properly interpret what they are reporting. So again, I don't care what you have to say on this topic.

FieldTheorist said:

Don't believe your lying eyes, Threegoofs! The hottest months on record, the historically significant flooding in Louisiana, the freakish el Nino's and the tropical storms that hit New York and New Jersey, the monsoons that have hit Asia --they're all lies! The fact that every year is literally the hottest on record? All lies!

Click to expand...

Tropical storm frequency and intensity are actually in decline. And El Nino events are both normal and expected.

Global Tropical Cyclone Frequency- 1971 to Present

Last 4-decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency — 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of TCs that reach at least tropical storm strength (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 34-knots). The bottom time series is the number of hurricane strength (64-knots+) TCs.​

Tim the plumber said:

HEY SKEPTICS!!

Look, the question is reasonable, what would it take for you to consider AGW a real treat???

If you can't answer that then you are as none-scientific in your thinking on this subject as the alarmists are in their cult. You have to be able to answer this question. Not do the same old quoting of various papers back and forth!!

Click to expand...

AGW is a real threat, but not from greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses are not the only impact we have.

Jack Hays said:

Tropical storm frequency and intensity are actually in decline. And El Nino events are both normal and expected.

Click to expand...

Nope, try again. In fact, you could probably do with reading this website a lot more thoroughly instead of spending time at Breitbart and friends.

This, Jack, is why people shouldn't debate you. You state patently false things with the aura of assurance, and yet even five minutes of fact-checking myself comes out conclusively that what I said was correct, and I can't even find sources for what you're saying. Seriously, do a google search for "tropical storm intensity decreasing," for me, the entire front page of Google is only pages from professional climate science sources that state the exact opposite.

FieldTheorist said:

Nope, try again. In fact, you could probably do with reading this website a lot more thoroughly instead of spending time at Breitbart and friends.

This, Jack, is why people shouldn't debate you. You state patently false things with the aura of assurance, and yet even five minutes of fact-checking myself comes out conclusively that what I said was correct, and I can't even find sources for what you're saying. Seriously, do a google search for "tropical storm intensity decreasing," for me, the entire front page of Google is only pages from professional climate science sources that state the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

NOAA disagrees. We are far below the mid-20th century peak.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory – (AOML) – Click the pic to view at source​

FieldTheorist said:

Nope, try again. In fact, you could probably do with reading this website a lot more thoroughly instead of spending time at Breitbart and friends.

This, Jack, is why people shouldn't debate you. You state patently false things with the aura of assurance, and yet even five minutes of fact-checking myself comes out conclusively that what I said was correct, and I can't even find sources for what you're saying. Seriously, do a google search for "tropical storm intensity decreasing," for me, the entire front page of Google is only pages from professional climate science sources that state the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present

Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) — 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.​

Jack Hays said:

NOAA disagrees. We are far below the mid-20th century peak.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's reasonable to use the US as evidence for the earth when the US is only a small part.

Tpaine said:

I don't think it's reasonable to use the US as evidence for the earth when the US is only a small part.

Click to expand...

#56, to which I responded, was US-focused. Had that post made an earth-level assertion I would have responded to that. Please see #58.

FieldTheorist said:

Nope, try again. In fact, you could probably do with reading this website a lot more thoroughly instead of spending time at Breitbart and friends.

This, Jack, is why people shouldn't debate you. You state patently false things with the aura of assurance, and yet even five minutes of fact-checking myself comes out conclusively that what I said was correct, and I can't even find sources for what you're saying. Seriously, do a google search for "tropical storm intensity decreasing," for me, the entire front page of Google is only pages from professional climate science sources that state the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

And btw, the first page of Google results using those search terms is not at all as you claim.

Jack Hays said:

NOAA disagrees. We are far below the mid-20th century peak.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory – (AOML) – Click the pic to view at source​

Click to expand...

No, NOAA does not agree with you, or more specifically it agrees with me on the relevant claim being made (severity of tropical storms, amongst of a litany of other obviously true claims that even you can't contest, like yearly increased temperatures). You have found one graphic, and are presenting that without interpretation, let alone NOAA's interpretation of this. However, I already linked you to the NCA's overall interpretation of all of the data (The website I linked you to was the official government aggregator for all of the governmental and private research organizations in the US, the National Climate Assessment, which includes NOAA is the funding agency and a major contributor to NCA). So technically, at that point you're just done. I could raise the obvious issues with what you're proposing, such as the fact that this does show how increased rainfall, property damage of storms, etc, are as a function of time or the overall severity of an individual storm (just being a "major" storm isn't Boolean, Hurricane Sandy in 2012 was the second deadliest tropical storm in recorded history, for instance.) So instead you choose to focus on the frequency of storms, which definitely isn't low but isn't particularly high relative to recorded history --but no matter what, it wasn't the claim that was being made.

This is why no one should take you seriously, Jack, you only have half-truths and deflections to fall back up on. It's again worth pointing out that you're narrowly focusing on a single thing that I said, disregarding the rest because it's so blatantly true, and then saying that because no one is 100% sure that the current tropical storms are unambiguously caused by AGW, we can assume AGW is false. This is the same kind of absurd creationist logic that if you can show that there's a missing link to one species, then evolution and the whole big bang theory are obviously false.

PS: El nino's are not getting weaker, despite your claims to the contrary.

Jack Hays said:

And btw, the first page of Google results using those search terms is not at all as you claim.

Click to expand...

I can only report what was on my screen, because searches vary from region to region.

Look, Jack, you can keep on replying to me, but in case I haven't made it abundantly clear yet, I have no respect for your positions and have no interest in debating you on this topic. The best case scenario here is that you keep on making me repeat the same case over and over again, and the worst case is that you correct me on a minor, irrelevant aspect of this debate and declare victory after refusing to internalize the fact that 98% of the experts still disagree with you and the majority of the issues that I raise. (In fact, you're already basically disregarded 99% of what I've said so far, and are, again, focusing in on irrelevant minutiae that says nothing about the scientific case for global warming.)

So as I've said before, I simply will not debate your ilk, and I'm going to hold myself to that. The science consensus is in: You are wrong, Jack. You are not better than 98% of climate scientists, and two climate-science laypeople having a discussion over this topic will not change that. If it makes you feel better, just pretend like we had 10 pages of discussion where I spoon-fed your verbatim quotes from NOAA, NCA, IPCC, etc reports.

Tpaine said:

Tim I am certainly not a climate scientists so it’s difficult for me to follow a lot of the debate if it gets too technical. I see graphs from the skeptics that show it’s not following the models and I see graphs from the other side that shows the temperature is following the models at least within the uncertainty factors. I don’t know how to determine an ‘ensemble mean’ of the models but I have found where I can track the digital data from NASA on a monthly basis so that is what I’ve decided to use for my personal interpretation of the science. And the graph below follows the data I download from the NASA site. From this graph it appears to me it is following the models fairly close. Or at least close enough to be an indication of the future rise in temperature.

View attachment 67207254

Click to expand...

Again that's not an answer to the question of what it would take for you to think that it's not a problem.

Given that you are doing a very good job of keeping yourself informed on ths subject, at least compared to the general population, you must be able to draw a line in the sand and say that once it is crossed then, fair enough.....

I am recognizing the huge avoidance of answering such a question on both sides of this debate. I am dissapointed by this.

Lord of Planar said:

AGW is a real threat, but not from greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses are not the only impact we have.

Click to expand...

Can you ellaborate a bit please. I think I know where you are going but...

Also what would it take for you to consider that CO2 was an effective driver of climate? And thus(?) a problem?

Tpaine said:

When are you saying El Nino Started and when did it end?

Click to expand...

The El Nino started about Oct 2015 or maybe Sept, it clearly influenced Oct Global temps.
The El Nino is over, but sometimes there is a La Nina downward flow after.

Tpaine said:

The IPCC was formed because scientists DID find evidence of Human caused global warming.

Click to expand...

People like James Hansen saw a pattern, and said it could only be CO2, in reality it was just the most likely suspect.
The rapid warming observed between 1978 and 1998 could be a combination of several events,
with CO2's direct response being one of them. Because the warming appears to have changed slope after the 1998 El Nino,
It is clear there are additional factors at play.

The IPCC says the likely rise is 3 degrees C. Do you have evidence it will be 1.2 C? For every 1 degree rise in temperature there will be 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere which is a strong greenhouse gas. That has been shown to raise the temperature another 1.2 to 1.8 additional degrees. There are other positive and negative feedbacks but overall the feedbacks are positive which made the ice ages possible.

Click to expand...

The IPCC says the 1.2 C is the direct warming from doubling the CO2 level.
All of the other feedbacks are based on speculation and have very limited verifiable evidence.
They believe these feedbacks exists, and they think they are positive, but values and even signs are assigned based on models
which are based on assumptions which have not been validated.

The 'easy' oil may be gone but the profitable oil is not. Right now around $50 is when drilling starts to pick back up.

Click to expand...

They get some activity at $50, but the high volume fracking was because oil was near $120.
The fractured wells pump faster, but have shorter lives. Oil will come back up, but now may have a ceiling.

That is still the number they are saying. But now 1.5 C is looking dangerously high.

Click to expand...

citation

That is true but it appears that will be more than offset by droughts, floods, and sea rise that will cause large amounts of displacements in the population. The 3 year drought in Syria caused rural populations to migrate to the urban areas looking for food. ISIS took advantage of this situation to increase their ranks.

Click to expand...

They try to blame all sorts of things on AGW, Floods and droughts happen, Syria has the same water problem the rest of the world has,
they pumped their ground water faster then it can replenish, and the wells ran dry.
Also the Sea Level has been raising at the same rate for several thousand years.
The limited instrument records show no acceleration.

But by the time that happens how much CO2 will we have pumped into the atmosphere and how long will it be before the temperature stops rising. It won't stop on a dime and what will cause it to decrease at that point?

Click to expand...

You seem to think oil will take a long time to increase, I disagree.
Many people lost money in the fracking boom, and are looking to recoup those losses.
The demand for oil continues to rise, and the price will follow.
Businesses hate risk, they live with it but hate it.
For a refinery the cost of keeping feedstock flowing is an unknown very far out.
If they know they can make an unlimited supply of their own feedstock for $90 a barrel,
it will be one of their running cycles.

longview said:

The El Nino started about Oct 2015 or maybe Sept, it clearly influenced Oct Global temps.
The El Nino is over, but sometimes there is a La Nina downward flow after.

Click to expand...

So when do you think it ended

Tpaine said:

So when do you think it ended

Click to expand...

The News outlets starting reporting in mid June that the El Nino portion of the cycle was over.
That would somewhat match the temperature record, June 2015 and June 2016 were the same.

Tim the plumber said:

Can you ellaborate a bit please. I think I know where you are going but...

Click to expand...

Well, it's back to aerosols changing the atmospheric transparency, soot changing the albedo of ice, and land use removing the natural transpiration.

Tim the plumber said:

Also what would it take for you to consider that CO2 was an effective driver of climate? And thus(?) a problem?

Click to expand...

Evidence that the hypothesis holds as a theory for the current implied sensitivity. There is no laboratory large enough to test the hypothesis. There are also studied that disagree with the 3.71 W/m^2 for a doubling.

Lord of Planar said:

Evidence that the hypothesis holds as a theory for the current implied sensitivity. There is no laboratory large enough to test the hypothesis. There are also studied that disagree with the 3.71 W/m^2 for a doubling.

Click to expand...

Yes, what would thatlook like?

Tim the plumber said:

Yes, what would thatlook like?

Click to expand...

The 3.71 W/m^2 is a fast response quantum effect, the imbalance would occur within seconds of the CO2 becoming well mixed.
The annual CO2 level cycles up and down as much at 6 ppm,
Perhaps someone could spot that signal in the noisy temperature data.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Tim the plumber said:

Again that's not an answer to the question of what it would take for you to think that it's not a problem.

Given that you are doing a very good job of keeping yourself informed on ths subject, at least compared to the general population, you must be able to draw a line in the sand and say that once it is crossed then, fair enough.....

I am recognizing the huge avoidance of answering such a question on both sides of this debate. I am dissapointed by this.

Click to expand...

I was responding to your previous post where you stated

“How long does that temperature data have to come in at lower than the lowest case predictions of the IPCC for you to think that AGW is not a problem? Another 10 years? 20 years? 60 years?”

I thought you were saying the models were wrong because the actual temperature was lower than the models were projecting and I was trying to say that it appears to me the models are about right. So if it appears to me the models are correct within the uncertainty spread at least of the IPCC models then I would disagree with how you defined the question.

It may well be that I’m not understanding what you are asking. However it might clarify my position to say that I think if we continue on the trend of the temperature increases for the past 45 years it will put us at around the 1.5 degrees above today’s temperature which would be around 2.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. And I accept the scientists predictions that 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial will be dangerous and 2 degrees will be catastrophic.

Tpaine said:

It may well be that I’m not understanding what you are asking. However it might clarify my position to say that I think if we continue on the trend of the temperature increases for the past 45 years it will put us at around the 1.5 degrees above today’s temperature which would be around 2.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. And I accept the scientists predictions that 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial will be dangerous and 2 degrees will be catastrophic.

Click to expand...

I have a question, How long do you think it will take to get to that 1.5 degrees C above today's temperature?
Also the trend for the temperature increases for the past 45 years has been all over the place.
If you exclude the 2015-2016 El Nino, We have spent almost as much time in the last half century neutral to cooling,
as we have warming.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
We had a rapid warmup between 1978 and 1998, some of which was the 1998 El Nino, but since about 2001 it has been quiet
until the current El Nino cycle.
( I know the GISS data set does not agree with the other data sets, but even it has a significant slope change post 2001.)
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

FieldTheorist said:

No, NOAA does not agree with you, or more specifically it agrees with me on the relevant claim being made (severity of tropical storms, amongst of a litany of other obviously true claims that even you can't contest, like yearly increased temperatures). You have found one graphic, and are presenting that without interpretation, let alone NOAA's interpretation of this. However, I already linked you to the NCA's overall interpretation of all of the data (The website I linked you to was the official government aggregator for all of the governmental and private research organizations in the US, the National Climate Assessment, which includes NOAA is the funding agency and a major contributor to NCA). So technically, at that point you're just done. I could raise the obvious issues with what you're proposing, such as the fact that this does show how increased rainfall, property damage of storms, etc, are as a function of time or the overall severity of an individual storm (just being a "major" storm isn't Boolean, Hurricane Sandy in 2012 was the second deadliest tropical storm in recorded history, for instance.) So instead you choose to focus on the frequency of storms, which definitely isn't low but isn't particularly high relative to recorded history --but no matter what, it wasn't the claim that was being made.

This is why no one should take you seriously, Jack, you only have half-truths and deflections to fall back up on. It's again worth pointing out that you're narrowly focusing on a single thing that I said, disregarding the rest because it's so blatantly true, and then saying that because no one is 100% sure that the current tropical storms are unambiguously caused by AGW, we can assume AGW is false. This is the same kind of absurd creationist logic that if you can show that there's a missing link to one species, then evolution and the whole big bang theory are obviously false.

PS: El nino's are not getting weaker, despite your claims to the contrary.

Click to expand...

FieldTheorist said:

I can only report what was on my screen, because searches vary from region to region.

Look, Jack, you can keep on replying to me, but in case I haven't made it abundantly clear yet, I have no respect for your positions and have no interest in debating you on this topic. The best case scenario here is that you keep on making me repeat the same case over and over again, and the worst case is that you correct me on a minor, irrelevant aspect of this debate and declare victory after refusing to internalize the fact that 98% of the experts still disagree with you and the majority of the issues that I raise. (In fact, you're already basically disregarded 99% of what I've said so far, and are, again, focusing in on irrelevant minutiae that says nothing about the scientific case for global warming.)

So as I've said before, I simply will not debate your ilk, and I'm going to hold myself to that. The science consensus is in: You are wrong, Jack. You are not better than 98% of climate scientists, and two climate-science laypeople having a discussion over this topic will not change that. If it makes you feel better, just pretend like we had 10 pages of discussion where I spoon-fed your verbatim quotes from NOAA, NCA, IPCC, etc reports.

Click to expand...

I accept your concession, and will not impede your retreat. Good luck in your future endeavors.