Global Warming of 1.5C

[IanC]

Of course, GHGs are the most important factor, by far, driving the current change in climate

Personally I don't care what people think. You seem to have an opinion heavily influenced by the media's coverage of consensus. That doesn't work for me because there are too much incongruity and outright misdirection.

 

[Crick]

That's great! What are the Chinese going to do about this?

They are still signatories to the Paris Climate Accord.

How China is Taking On Climate Change

 

[Crick]

Of course, GHGs are the most important factor, by far, driving the current change in climate

Personally I don't care what people think. You seem to have an opinion heavily influenced by the media's coverage of consensus. That doesn't work for me because there are too much incongruity and outright misdirection.

What incongruity and misdirection?

 

[IanC]

Of course, GHGs are the most important factor, by far, driving the current change in climate

Personally I don't care what people think. You seem to have an opinion heavily influenced by the media's coverage of consensus. That doesn't work for me because there are too much incongruity and outright misdirection.

What incongruity and misdirection?

We have argued over a large collection of topics during the years. Which one would you like to revisit?

 

[fncceo]

1.5 degrees C is smaller than the margin of error for the daily weather report.

The industrial age began in mid-18th Century, 260 years ago.

That means an average increase of .0058 degrees C per annum over that time... an increase that is smaller by far than the accuracy of the historical data.

I'm having a hard time taking seriously that an unsubstantiated difference of 50/10000th of a degree per year is the difference between life an death for planet Earth.

Does that make me a climate heretic?

 

[Olde Europe]

Of course, GHGs are the most important factor, by far, driving the current change in climate

Personally I don't care what people think. You seem to have an opinion heavily influenced by the media's coverage of consensus. That doesn't work for me because there are too much incongruity and outright misdirection.

What incongruity and misdirection?

We have argued over a large collection of topics during the years. Which one would you like to revisit?

The only incongruity I have seen so far is the one between the extent of your ignorance and the supreme confidence of your judgment. The only misdirection is due to your misunderstanding of what the science says and your "informing" (read: misleading ) other posters about the "science".

The most glaring example is your way over-confident assertion that GHGs are a minor factor in global warming, Crick posting the AR5 chart detailing the magnitude of the respective influences, and your carefully avoiding taking that information into account, and NOT reverting the your falsehood. That's a chart everyone who ever scrolled through an IPCC report has seen, but you either haven't, or didn't understand it. That is both incongruity and misdirection all wrapped in one, with a fierce resistance to learning on top of it.

 

[SSDD]

GHGs can impart a warming influence but they are not the only factor. They are not even the most important factor.

The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude.

Small variance in the type or timing in cloud formation can easily offset the small GHG influence .

Of course, GHGs are the most important factor, by far, driving the current change in climate. There's little by way of "unknown influences" - meaning in theory most influences are known, uncertainties notwithstanding. What we don't know is when exactly the feedback loops we're triggering, as temperatures on earth are rising, are kicking in. Cloud formation is a minor influence, and, as far as I have seen, no one of any stature in the climate science community expects it to overwhelm or reverse the energy imbalance humans have caused.

Care to provide a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

Didn't think so, because there are none...so since there are no such papers, upon what exactly do you base your opinion?

 

[SSDD]

What makes you think there are unknown factors with greater magnitudes than anything known?

Derived from failing models...no actual observed, measured evidence supports that graph...

 

[SSDD]

1.5 degrees C is smaller than the margin of error for the daily weather report.

The industrial age began in mid-18th Century, 260 years ago.

That means an average increase of .0058 degrees C per annum over that time... an increase that is smaller by far than the accuracy of the historical data.

I'm having a hard time taking seriously that an unsubstantiated difference of 50/10000th of a degree per year is the difference between life an death for planet Earth.

Does that make me a climate heretic?

1.5 degrees on a planet in which the high and low on any given day can be as much as 200 degrees apart....it is bullshit..and as you said, higher than the margin of error for even a local forecast...

 

[Crick]

I really wish you people had actually taken Probability and Statistics 101 at some point in your lives.

So, by this tactic, you can claim you are correct to reject all global temperature data. What a surprise.

 

[skookerasbil]

That's great! What are the Chinese going to do about this?

They are still signatories to the Paris Climate Accord.

How China is Taking On Climate Change

The Paris Accords

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy

Paris climate treaty dead

s0n......Disney is ghey

 

[Crick]

I suspect this eluded you, but my post and my link presents facts. Your post with its two links present opinions.

 

[SSDD]

I suspect this eluded you, but my post and my link presents facts. Your post with its two links present opinions.

Actually, your post presents figures from a heavily massaged, altered, and infilled record...it is a fact that it is data but it is highly questionable as to whether it is accurate....or even meaningful. But it is good enough to fool you.

 

[IanC]

The most glaring example is your way over-confident assertion that GHGs are a minor factor in global warming, Crick posting the AR5 chart detailing the magnitude of the respective influences, and your carefully avoiding taking that information into account, and NOT reverting the your falsehood. That's a chart everyone who ever scrolled through an IPCC report has seen, but you either haven't, or didn't understand it. That is both incongruity and misdirection all wrapped in one, with a fierce resistance to learning on top of it.

This present discussion is directly related to the IPCC quote about coupled non-linear chaotic systems being non predictable. (Which you wished was fake, or at least taken out of context )

I pointed out an area that is very difficult to model in a meaningful way. Cloud formation and timing.

Crick then asked me with a straight face to provide him with the list of unknown natural factors! Hahahahaha. And gave me a graph of known anthropogenic factors.

And now you are calling me ignorant and misleading?

I am reasonably informed on most general climate science topics. Bring up a topic if you want. If you make clever statements I will respond. If you parrot a stupid media propaganda point then I may not.

 

[depotoo]

Actually, many stations have been removed in the last few decades, leaving those nearer equipment induced heat islands.
And rather than adjust temps down for these sensors, they actually increase temp readings in rural and semi rural areas to come into closer agreement with these equipment induced readings.

Are you also aware that many Ipcc research papers have been written by students rather than those with phd’s? Finding published in 2011-

One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master's degree while on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.

Another lead author in 1994 earned his master's only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.

An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 — despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.

Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old — six years prior to completing his PhD.

Laframboise claims in the book that “neither [Klein's] youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts.”

We cannot explain why the Earth got warm during the MWP, why it cooled during the LIA, or why it warmed again to 1950.

But apparently we can categorically state that all the warming since then is mankind's fault.

I call bullshit.

The climate anomalies you mention are not thought to be global events. So much for "the Earth got warm", or "cooled", for that matter.

You may wish to brush up on that, here, for instance.

There is not yet a full explanation for that, which is unsurprising given the lack of a contemporary global network of temperature measurements. Now that this network exists, and science has progressed a bit since the MWP, researchers state with high confidence that we're heading into a period of human-induced warming. So much for "categorical".

You shouldn't be calling "bullshit" while you still have a lot to learn about the goings-on, or so I find.

 

[Olde Europe]

Crick then asked me with a straight face to provide him with the list of unknown natural factors! Hahahahaha. And gave me a graph of known anthropogenic factors.

No, he didn't ask you for a "list of unknown natural factors". He asked:

"What unknown influences and factors Ian?"

That may sound puzzling at first blush, but it is a plausible response, since you so confidently asserted, "The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude."

And with that babbling of yours it's perfectly reasonable to ask what influences and factors you may have in mind. Because, taking reasonable what you typed, elves might have some influence on our climate, too. We just haven't seen elves lately. So, you seem to be throwing in comments that would destroy science itself. Because with every phenomenon physics describes, there could be a counter vaguely referring to "unknown influences", which might alter future developments. That, however, would be benighted.

And, he didn't give you a "graph of known anthropogenic factors". You can look up your misrepresentation yourself.

And that is (among many other instances of you misrepresenting, seemingly not understanding and distorting science) why ...

And now you are calling me ignorant and misleading?

... I do in fact call you ignorant and misleading. Because that's what describes you best.

Look, Ian, I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you aren't just another merchant of doubt, harder thought that gets posting by posting. If you had gotten to work and engaged in debate, you'd have thought about Crick's question, and had come up with possible factors (or combinations thereof) the world's leading climate scientists may have overlooked, which might decisively alter the earth's energy balance. The old puzzle - cloud formation is difficult to model - patently doesn't fit the bill. The factor is at least an order of magnitude too small.

I am admittedly done with, and disinterested in, any back and forth with denialingdongs and ignoramuses trying to besmirch climate science. Their time is over (has been for a while). Inventing "unknown influences and combinations of factors" out of thin air may be somewhat creative, but it adds nothing to debate. There plainly is no there there. "Hahahahaha." For all I care, you can stuff that.

 

[skookerasbil]

Without the US 22 billion, the Paris Treaty is a joke! Even with US $, these treaties end up falling waaaaaaaaay short of stated goals. Only the climate nutters think China is serious about climate action.....what a bunch of suckers.

 

[Indeependent]

Please send the elevated temperature of 1 degree to Nassau County.

 

[skookerasbil]

Worries over China coal power boom

From the BBC no less!! Yuk....yuk.


DOY

Disney is ghey

 

[IanC]

Crick then asked me with a straight face to provide him with the list of unknown natural factors! Hahahahaha. And gave me a graph of known anthropogenic factors.

No, he didn't ask you for a "list of unknown natural factors". He asked:

"What unknown influences and factors Ian?"

That may sound puzzling at first blush, but it is a plausible response, since you so confidently asserted, "The chaotic nature of climate change means that unknown influences and combinations of factors cause unknowable changes of variable magnitude."

And with that babbling of yours it's perfectly reasonable to ask what influences and factors you may have in mind. Because, taking reasonable what you typed, elves might have some influence on our climate, too. We just haven't seen elves lately. So, you seem to be throwing in comments that would destroy science itself. Because with every phenomenon physics describes, there could be a counter vaguely referring to "unknown influences", which might alter future developments. That, however, would be benighted.

And, he didn't give you a "graph of known anthropogenic factors". You can look up your misrepresentation yourself.

And that is (among many other instances of you misrepresenting, seemingly not understanding and distorting science) why ...

And now you are calling me ignorant and misleading?

... I do in fact call you ignorant and misleading. Because that's what describes you best.

Look, Ian, I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you aren't just another merchant of doubt, harder thought that gets posting by posting. If you had gotten to work and engaged in debate, you'd have thought about Crick's question, and had come up with possible factors (or combinations thereof) the world's leading climate scientists may have overlooked, which might decisively alter the earth's energy balance. The old puzzle - cloud formation is difficult to model - patently doesn't fit the bill. The factor is at least an order of magnitude too small.

I am admittedly done with, and disinterested in, any back and forth with denialingdongs and ignoramuses trying to besmirch climate science. Their time is over (has been for a while). Inventing "unknown influences and combinations of factors" out of thin air may be somewhat creative, but it adds nothing to debate. There plainly is no there there. "Hahahahaha." For all I care, you can stuff that.

Hahahahaha. I see you are doubling down on stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call the graph that Crick posted. I looked for the provenance but it didn't seem to have a caption.