This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[BULLDOG]

So you agree you are an ideologue.

Non-expert means must be an ideologue? You got a link for that?

 

[ReinyDays]

You might be shocked to learn there is a wide range of subjects I don't particularly care about being an expert on. I'm old, retired, and just don't have the years or interest in dedicating the effort to becoming an expert in climate science, juggling, or tap dancing. Sorry if that disappoints you.

Then you admit discussing climate change from a position of ignorance ... you're certainly doing a poor job repeating what actual experts say ... you're not in a very good position to comment on other's knowledge ... so maybe you shouldn't ...

We're here because we're hobbyists ... we love studying and learning about the weather ... we're retired but no where close to ending our learning ...

 

[ding]

Non-expert means must be an ideologue? You got a link for that?

Don’t need a link. I have your posts. You’ve already admitted to being ignorant and the only reason you believe it is because you have been told you should believe it.

Blindly accepting authority is a hallmark of an ideologue.

 

[BULLDOG]

No you have NOTHING but fallacies to promote a sign of low intelligence as smart people never go that route.

Smart people never require verification for claims of expertise? Are you sure about that?

 

[ding]

Smart people never require verification for claims of expertise? Are you sure about that?

Then you must not be a smart person because you have blindly accepted AGW without question.

I don’t. I accept that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 1C increase in surface temperature. I do not accept the 3.5C feedback from this 1C.

Can you tell me why you do?

 

[BULLDOG]

Then maybe you shouldn’t be arguing with people who have.

Forgive me. I didn't know you were an expert on tap dancing and juggling as well. Perhaps you can include those credentials with the ones for climate science. I await delivery of your package

 

[BULLDOG]

I think I’ll call you out any way.

Okey Dokey.

 

[ding]

Forgive me. I didn't know you were an expert on tap dancing and juggling as well. Perhaps you can include those credentials with the ones for climate science. I await delivery of your package

I’ve told you before. Degreed engineer. Practiced engineering for 38 years and studied paleoclimates for 20 years.

You?

 

[ding]

Okey Dokey.

You need a good public beat down.

 

[Oddball]

Everyone knows mankind has warmed the earth's climate. Everyone.

Those who say we haven't know that we have. It's not something to debate whether it is happening or not.

That's, sadly, the best we can do about it.

Odd that nobody -but nobody- can bench test that claim, isn't it?

 

[ReinyDays]

Odd that nobody -but nobody- can bench test that claim, isn't it?

We have both smoke and mirrors ... but no, there doesn't seem to be a demonstration of carbon dioxide's "magical" forces ... shouldn't be that hard to do ...

 

[Robert W]

Those voices in your head must be talking again, cause I never claimed to be an expert. My entire point in this thread is that neither of us has the training or experience to even evaluate the complex issues in this subject. I'll admit my shortcoming, and need to rely on experts. You're trying to bullshit your way past yours.

I gave you an actual climate expert to listen to him explain this to you. This is another climate expert. Dr. Judith Curry

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry explains ‘climate change’ in 5 minutes – ‘Climate change is a grand narrative…has become the dominant cause of societal problems’

by Judith Curry How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes? Last …

www.climatedepot.com

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry explains ‘climate change’ in 5 minutes – ‘Climate change is a grand narrative…has become the dominant cause of societal problems’​

5 minutes - Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?

Last week I served on a panel for a summer school in Canada for engineering students. They are working on the energy transition, and their Professor wanted them to be exposed to the debate surrounding all this, and to think critically. I was the only climate scientist on the panel, the others were involved in renewable energy. Each panelist was given 5 minutes to make their main points. The essay below is what i came up with. 5 minutes is longer than an elevator speech, but it is still pretty short

---

Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’

It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change are being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

Specifically with regards to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty. Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales. And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say. According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states. Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value. Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as ‘dangerous.’

Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.

Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

With regards to energy. All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st-century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th-century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.

How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th-century renewable energy technologies.

We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century while protecting the environment as much as we can.

---

This was a pretty interesting discussion.

Not much time to really summarize, but I realize we BADLY need a new post. I’ve been crazy busy, but I just finished a big project and the Atlantic hurricanes are behaving, hopefully for the next two weeks. I’ll try to get a post up on the heat waves in the western U.S.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then you admit discussing climate change from a position of ignorance ... you're certainly doing a poor job repeating what actual experts say ... you're not in a very good position to comment on other's knowledge ... so maybe you shouldn't ...

We're here because we're hobbyists ... we love studying and learning about the weather ... we're retired but no where close to ending our learning ...

While I admit a certain level of ignorance on the subject that doesn't mean I am totally in the dark about the subject. My point is that reading a few questionable links on the internet doesn't qualify me to eliminate the work of experts who have invested years in the study of the subject. Seems the MAGA bunch doesn't agree with that fact.

 

[BULLDOG]

Don’t need a link. I have your posts. You’ve already admitted to being ignorant and the only reason you believe it is because you have been told you should believe it.

Blindly accepting authority is a hallmark of an ideologue.

I suppose you can believe what you choose to believe, but you have to torture my remarks severely to get that crap you just spouted.

 

[ding]

I suppose you can believe what you choose to believe, but you have to torture my remarks severely to get that crap you just spouted.

No, I don’t. You have said as much and you avoid discussing the science like it’s Ebola.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then you must not be a smart person because you have blindly accepted AGW without question.

I don’t. I accept that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 1C increase in surface temperature. I do not accept the 3.5C feedback from this 1C.

Can you tell me why you do?

Because I recognize that the majority of experts disagree with you.

 

[BULLDOG]

I’ve told you before. Degreed engineer. Practiced engineering for 38 years and studied paleoclimates for 20 years.

You?

see 125

 

[BULLDOG]

You need a good public beat down.

Okey Dokey.
Seem you've been trying to do that for the last little bit.

 

[odanny]

Odd that nobody -but nobody- can bench test that claim, isn't it?

I guess you are saying correlation does not imply causation, but I would counter with .....

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

[BULLDOG]

I gave you an actual climate expert to listen to him explain this to you. This is another climate expert. Dr. Judith Curry

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry explains ‘climate change’ in 5 minutes – ‘Climate change is a grand narrative…has become the dominant cause of societal problems’

by Judith Curry How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes? Last …

www.climatedepot.com

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry explains ‘climate change’ in 5 minutes – ‘Climate change is a grand narrative…has become the dominant cause of societal problems’​

5 minutes - Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?

Last week I served on a panel for a summer school in Canada for engineering students. They are working on the energy transition, and their Professor wanted them to be exposed to the debate surrounding all this, and to think critically. I was the only climate scientist on the panel, the others were involved in renewable energy. Each panelist was given 5 minutes to make their main points. The essay below is what i came up with. 5 minutes is longer than an elevator speech, but it is still pretty short

---

Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’

It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change are being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

Specifically with regards to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty. Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales. And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say. According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states. Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value. Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as ‘dangerous.’

Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.

Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

With regards to energy. All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st-century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th-century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.

How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th-century renewable energy technologies.

We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century while protecting the environment as much as we can.

---

This was a pretty interesting discussion.

Not much time to really summarize, but I realize we BADLY need a new post. I’ve been crazy busy, but I just finished a big project and the Atlantic hurricanes are behaving, hopefully for the next two weeks. I’ll try to get a post up on the heat waves in the western U.S.

That's two. Thousands disagree with those two.