Ice, again

[gnarlylove]

If one knows sufficient variables that create effects, it is reasonable to assume we can predict trends.

Therein lies the problem. We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.

See, this is much more reasonable. I'm proud of you. That's all I was hoping to get out of ya. Saying we simply have no hope in making predictions is not helpful or true. Correct me if I am wrong but your original claim appeared like an attempt to just shut down debate basically saying "these things are unknowable so let's quit talking about them."

That is just not true. They are knowable withing a certain range. Of course we cannot know with 100% precision because variables are well, variable. Disputing whether we have sufficient knowledge of them makes much more sense than saying predictions are impossible or unrealistic.

Baby steps. We need to take it slow. Anyone think we know those variables and causal relationships sufficiently?

 

[Abraham3]

We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.

 

[gnarlylove]

I agree that we have adequate knowledge given the fact climate change as exacerbated by man has been around since the 60s (or even earlier). I'd imagine the science has made major strides since that time on understanding it. Sadly, our dissenters are really derogatory denialists and little more. If there only point was the science is confusing for stupid people, I'd agree. If there only point was that the science is incomplete, I'd agree. But beyond those two benign points, we are quite clearly responsible for disrupting the Earth's balance. All reality hangs in the balance and Carbon Dioxide cycles are no different. Introducing additional gigatons each year, year after year, for a century has an effect.

I was taking a walk today and was just in disbelief of the weather change here along the Ohio River. For 2 or 3 weeks it has been bitch ass cold and every square inch was blanketed with snow. Just yesterday it snapped into warm almost summer-like weather and especially today it has been 62 degrees. Yet my old quarry pond is still frozen solid some 6 inches demonstrating how long and cold it was. Tomorrow it's suppose to reach 72. There is flooding in parts of my 45 acres that have never flooded before as it melts.

This got me thinking that clearly the climate is changing at a pace humans can visibly notice, which is atypical for geological time. Then I thought over the course of the next decade we will see an obvious increase assuming current trends. Additionally methane will become a significant source of energy. So as CH4, which I've heard is 105 times more potent GHG than CO2, we will obviously see an even greater impact on climate change. So this visible change will be exacerbated and in a decade (or 2) all the denialist will die off but we will be stuck with all the GHG.

As we both know Abraham, CO2 will remain in out atmostphere for a millennia. This spells bad news. Although we will begin addressing climate change when it becomes overt and visible (once it effects white middle class in prices etc.) the CO2 that we expelled over that decade will only accumulate. This means any new CO2 can only intensify it that much more.

To make matters worse, our CH4 concentrations will also spike. While CH4 dissipates in about a decade, major consequences in climate change will result with this doubly wammy. Plus we will have come to heavily depend on natural gas (as a "clean energy") rather than a really clean energy. So the infrastructure of a few thousand miles that is currently being built (see Constitution Pipeline among dozens) will ensure we will have a serious problem on our hands.

In summary, over the next decade or two assuming current trends we are practically excluding any chance of avoiding serious problems as a result of climate change. What do you think? Am I seeing this accurately or do you think I'm off base? (I'm asking Abraham only). That is to say, will CH4 play a role and will CO2 continue to intensify?

 

[SwimExpert]

Therein lies the problem. We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.

Who told you that?

Unlike you, I don't need someone to tell me everything in order for me to know them.

 

[SSDD]

Therein lies the problem. We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.

Who told you that?

Unlike you, I don't need someone to tell me everything in order for me to know them.

Really? So tell me... What is the climate sensitivity to CO2?

 

[Abraham3]

Therein lies the problem. We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.

Who told you that?

Unlike you, I don't need someone to tell me everything in order for me to know them.

You're supposed to put some sort of emoticon up there when you tell a joke like that. If you don't, folks might think you're serious.

Your knowledge of climate science, then, is a priori? Was that part of your gifttedness?

 

[SSDD]

We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.

Not even close. Example: what ts the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error of the value you give. Without a damned accurate grasp of that factor you can't possibly begin to make rational predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis.

 

[Old Rocks]

We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.

Not even close. Example: what ts the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error of the value you give. Without a damned accurate grasp of that factor you can't possibly begin to make rational predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis.

And you are totally full of bullshit, SSDD. Written in 1981;

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

 

[Old Rocks]

Therein lies the problem. We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.

Who told you that?

Unlike you, I don't need someone to tell me everything in order for me to know them.

I see. Then I assume God just has his personal line to you to tell you all the facts of the universe. Wheeeeeeeee.....................

 

[westwall]

We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.

Not even close. Example: what ts the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error of the value you give. Without a damned accurate grasp of that factor you can't possibly begin to make rational predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis.

And you are totally full of bullshit, SSDD. Written in 1981;

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

What areas have been rendered "drought prone" that weren't already? Every area that is experiencing drought now, has experienced it before. This is nothing new, and is in fact, less onerous than it has been in the past.

 

[westwall]

Who told you that?

Unlike you, I don't need someone to tell me everything in order for me to know them.

I see. Then I assume God just has his personal line to you to tell you all the facts of the universe. Wheeeeeeeee.....................

Yes, just like your high priests are the ooooonly people who can understand the gibberish they vomit out on a regular basis....

 

[Abraham3]

Unlike you, I don't need someone to tell me everything in order for me to know them.

I see. Then I assume God just has his personal line to you to tell you all the facts of the universe. Wheeeeeeeee.....................

Yes, just like your high priests are the ooooonly people who can understand the gibberish they vomit out on a regular basis....

That is not our position at all. We understand most of what they put out and we expect that you and all the rest can understand it as well. You simply reject it out of hand because it refutes your biased, prejudicial and evidentially unsupported position.

As to Swimexpert's contention that he has gleaned any significant amount of knowledge in life without the active or passive assistance of others - it is complete egotistical nonsense. But if you want to support him - heck, if you want to join him in the claim - be our guest. There's a name for such "knowledge".

 

[Abraham3]

We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.

Not even close. Example: what ts the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error of the value you give. Without a damned accurate grasp of that factor you can't possibly begin to make rational predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis.

Predictions may be made with precisely the margin of the sum of uncertainties that goes into it. That's standard practice. And if you go look at the IPCC's predictions, you will see a wide range identified as being due to our uncertainties in climate sensitivity and in the future of human GHG emissions. I think a review of the rather sparse literature on your side of the fence will show a much greater likelihood of failing to include error budgets in predictions.

 

[SSDD]

We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.

Not even close. Example: what ts the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error of the value you give. Without a damned accurate grasp of that factor you can't possibly begin to make rational predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis.

And you are totally full of bullshit, SSDD. Written in 1981;

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Sorry guy, but the past 17+ years lay waste to that claim of sensitivity. Care to try again? What is the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error? If you don't know that, then any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis is, to use your word...bullshit.

 

[SSDD]

We know them well enough to give the resultant predictions some value.

Not even close. Example: what ts the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and what is the margin of error of the value you give. Without a damned accurate grasp of that factor you can't possibly begin to make rational predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis.

Predictions may be made with precisely the margin of the sum of uncertainties that goes into it. That's standard practice. And if you go look at the IPCC's predictions, you will see a wide range identified as being due to our uncertainties in climate sensitivity and in the future of human GHG emissions. I think a review of the rather sparse literature on your side of the fence will show a much greater likelihood of failing to include error budgets in predictions.

So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the climate sensitivity is so you use coincidental data to support your claim so long as the coincidence is in your favor....when it isn't, as in the past 17+ years of flat temps while CO2 is steadily rising, you ignore it completely and hold faith in the failed hypothesis. At this point, climate science isn't even moderately sure of what they are unsure about. The AGW hoax is a scam and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.....you, abraham, are a laughing stock.

The bottom line is that climate science has no real idea of what the one figure is that would legitimize their claims...they are guessing...they are fabricating... they are full of....to use rock's word, full of bullshit.

 

[Abraham3]

So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the climate sensitivity is so you use coincidental data to support your claim so long as the coincidence is in your favor.

No, that is not what I said. Should I complain to the moderators that you have mischaracterized my opinion?

I pulled numbers off the top of my very shiny head. Going to Chapter 12 of AR5 itself we find the following statement:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely."

I believe the work of the IPCC to be the best climate information available and, as I have stated on several occasions, my opinion is their opinion because of that.

...when it isn't, as in the past 17+ years of flat temps while CO2 is steadily rising, you ignore it completely and hold faith in the failed hypothesis.

I do not ignore it. Once again you completely mischaracterize my repeatedly expressed opinion and I again ask "should I report you for it"? What YOU and the rest of your gang have REPEATEDLY declined to do is discuss the 1941-1979 COOLING period: why, in your opinions, it does not bring the current hiatus into the demonstrated range of natural variability, why we should take the current hiatus as signficant when 1941-1979 was not and why you think 17 years of moderated SURFACE warming with no change in the ToA radiative imbalance refutes 170 of rising global heat content.

At this point, climate science isn't even moderately sure of what they are unsure about. The AGW hoax is a scam and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.....you, abraham, are a laughing stock.

Those would be more of your unending stream of unsubstantiated assertions. Do you know how much value is inherent in an unsubstantiated assertion? Guess. Go on, guess. Let's hear it. How much? C'mon, how much?

The bottom line is that climate science has no real idea of what the one figure is that would legitimize their claims...they are guessing...they are fabricating... they are full of....to use rock's word, full of bullshit.

There are quite literally reams of scholarly work behind the IPCC statement above. It is YOUR statements here that bear the unmistakable taint of anal derivation.

 

[SSDD]

So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the climate sensitivity is so you use coincidental data to support your claim so long as the coincidence is in your favor.

No, that is not what I said. Should I complain to the moderators that you have mischaracterized my opinion?

I pulled numbers off the top of my very shiny head. Going to Chapter 12 of AR5 itself we find the following statement:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely."

I believe the work of the IPCC to be the best climate information available and, as I have stated on several occasions, my opinion is their opinion because of that.

...when it isn't, as in the past 17+ years of flat temps while CO2 is steadily rising, you ignore it completely and hold faith in the failed hypothesis.

I do not ignore it. Once again you completely mischaracterize my repeatedly expressed opinion and I again ask "should I report you for it"? What YOU and the rest of your gang have REPEATEDLY declined to do is discuss the 1941-1979 COOLING period: why, in your opinions, it does not bring the current hiatus into the demonstrated range of natural variability, why we should take the current hiatus as signficant when 1941-1979 was not and why you think 17 years of moderated SURFACE warming with no change in the ToA radiative imbalance refutes 170 of rising global heat content.

At this point, climate science isn't even moderately sure of what they are unsure about. The AGW hoax is a scam and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.....you, abraham, are a laughing stock.

Those would be more of your unending stream of unsubstantiated assertions. Do you know how much value is inherent in an unsubstantiated assertion? Guess. Go on, guess. Let's hear it. How much? C'mon, how much?

The bottom line is that climate science has no real idea of what the one figure is that would legitimize their claims...they are guessing...they are fabricating... they are full of....to use rock's word, full of bullshit.

There are quite literally reams of scholarly work behind the IPCC statement above. It is YOUR statements here that bear the unmistakable taint of anal derivation.

So once again....what is the climate sensitivity to CO2,and what is the margin of error and of what use is any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis if you aren't damned sure of that number

 

[Abraham3]

So what you are saying is that you have no idea what the climate sensitivity is so you use coincidental data to support your claim so long as the coincidence is in your favor.

No, that is not what I said. Should I complain to the moderators that you have mischaracterized my opinion?

I pulled numbers off the top of my very shiny head. Going to Chapter 12 of AR5 itself we find the following statement:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely."

I believe the work of the IPCC to be the best climate information available and, as I have stated on several occasions, my opinion is their opinion because of that.

I do not ignore it. Once again you completely mischaracterize my repeatedly expressed opinion and I again ask "should I report you for it"? What YOU and the rest of your gang have REPEATEDLY declined to do is discuss the 1941-1979 COOLING period: why, in your opinions, it does not bring the current hiatus into the demonstrated range of natural variability, why we should take the current hiatus as signficant when 1941-1979 was not and why you think 17 years of moderated SURFACE warming with no change in the ToA radiative imbalance refutes 170 of rising global heat content.



Those would be more of your unending stream of unsubstantiated assertions. Do you know how much value is inherent in an unsubstantiated assertion? Guess. Go on, guess. Let's hear it. How much? C'mon, how much?

The bottom line is that climate science has no real idea of what the one figure is that would legitimize their claims...they are guessing...they are fabricating... they are full of....to use rock's word, full of bullshit.

There are quite literally reams of scholarly work behind the IPCC statement above. It is YOUR statements here that bear the unmistakable taint of anal derivation.

So once again....what is the climate sensitivity to CO2,and what is the margin of error

Asked and answered repeatedly just in the last 24 hours. Can you not read?

2C - 4.5C

and of what use is any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis if you aren't damned sure of that number

Of what use is ANYTHING you have brought to this forum?

 

[SSDD]

No, that is not what I said. Should I complain to the moderators that you have mischaracterized my opinion?

I pulled numbers off the top of my very shiny head. Going to Chapter 12 of AR5 itself we find the following statement:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely."

I believe the work of the IPCC to be the best climate information available and, as I have stated on several occasions, my opinion is their opinion because of that.

I do not ignore it. Once again you completely mischaracterize my repeatedly expressed opinion and I again ask "should I report you for it"? What YOU and the rest of your gang have REPEATEDLY declined to do is discuss the 1941-1979 COOLING period: why, in your opinions, it does not bring the current hiatus into the demonstrated range of natural variability, why we should take the current hiatus as signficant when 1941-1979 was not and why you think 17 years of moderated SURFACE warming with no change in the ToA radiative imbalance refutes 170 of rising global heat content.



Those would be more of your unending stream of unsubstantiated assertions. Do you know how much value is inherent in an unsubstantiated assertion? Guess. Go on, guess. Let's hear it. How much? C'mon, how much?



There are quite literally reams of scholarly work behind the IPCC statement above. It is YOUR statements here that bear the unmistakable taint of anal derivation.

So once again....what is the climate sensitivity to CO2,and what is the margin of error

Asked and answered repeatedly just in the last 24 hours. Can you not read?

2C - 4.5C

A margin of error greater than 100%....Once more, I am laughing out loud in your stupid face. How can you possibly take such drivel seriously?

and of what use is any prediction based on the AGW hypothesis if you aren't damned sure of that number

what use is ANYTHING you have brought to this forum?

It serves to bring your stupidity and gullibility clearly out into the open. Your responses are invariably the talking points your priests gave you and you have clearly not given them much thought. The fact that the margin of error for the claimed sensitivity is greater than 100% and yet you believe it makes that obvious.

 

[gnarlylove]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/s...ruvian-ice-cap-to-higher-temperatures.html?hp
"Now, a group of scientists is presenting new findings suggesting that over the centuries, temperature is the main factor controlling the growth and retreat of the largest glacier emerging from the ice cap. If they are right, then Quelccaya’s recent melting could indeed be viewed as a symbol of the planetary warming linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases."