patrick.net

How much CO2=How much temperature increase.

If CO2 = X ppm, then Earth Temp = Y Degrees. With Backtests, since we have about 100 years of direct temp measurements globally, and also know the CO2 levels to a high degree of confidence.

If Modelers can't answer that, their Model is worthless.

Onvacation says

How much has the temp and sea level risen in the last hundred years?
How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?
If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?
What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

Answers so far:
The earth has risen less than 2 degrees and the sea has risen less than one foot over the last 150 years.
The temperature rose 4/100 of one degree plus or minus 8/100 of one degree between 2015, the second hottest, and 2016 the hottest year ever. The numbers for 2017 are still being processed.
How 4/100 of one degree measured all over the world can be accurate or even claimed as record warm when the temp very well have been 4/100 of a degree colder.
Rew says

Onvacation says

If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?

You confuse a single data point with a net trend.

If I have a sheet of steel, 1 inch thick and 1 square mile surface area, and I raise the temperature of a single localized point on that plate to 100 degrees ... how much energy did that take? What if I raised the entire surface 40 degrees over the entire plate? How much energy did that take? How much net heat is transferred to the air as the plate cools to the air temperature in each case?

Correct me if I am wrong Rew, but I believe the argument is just because most of the record highs were recorded last century doesn't mean the WHOLE world is not warmer now.
The only one ever to brave an answer to the ideal human habitation quesion was Dan from Florida; he wanted 2 degrees cooler.

@Onvacation, what is the ideal place for a human to vacation?

anon_61c8a says

@Onvacation, what is the ideal place for a human to vacation?

There is no ideal. Humans can have fun in a wide range of places.
I like to go windsurfing in maui and skiing in Colorado. My wife's family owns an island in northern Maine so we spend a week there every summer.
Humans are adaptable.

Onvacation says

anon_61c8a says

@Onvacation, what is the ideal place for a human to vacation?

There is no ideal. Humans can have fun in a wide range of places.
I like to go windsurfing in maui and skiing in Colorado. My wife's family owns an island in northern Maine so we spend a week there every summer.
Humans are adaptable.

They are “adaptable” in the current numbers only because all necessary goods and services are brought to them. Millions of people don’t currently live in the desert or wherever you care to pick because it is locally sustainable, so I’m not clear on what point you are/have been trying to make.

anon_aa05b says

They are “adaptable” in the current numbers only because all necessary goods and services are brought to them. Millions of people don’t currently live in the desert or wherever you care to pick because it is locally sustainable, so I’m not clear on what point you are/have been trying to make.

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?
The point is the globe is not warming catastrophically.

You picked a small number of vacation destinations as places to visit. There are huge areas that would be absolute shit to live in. So, humans are quite adaptable, and some like some places more than others, but some places are universally shitty.
The question becomes, what happens with global warming at 1 oC, 2 oC, 3 oC, 4 oC, 5 oC? What happens to areas that are currently nice places to live? Do some of them turn uninhabitable? How many? Does it cause civil unrest on top of local suffering? With only 1 oC, we are already seeing some new weather patterns that may be caused by the warming that we have seen. We know that sea levels do not change linearly with temperature. The increase slowly until they reach a tipping point and then they increase dramatically. That's kind of obvious from the historic record.
Do we just believe you when you proclaim that there is nothing to worry about? Our military cares a lot about it. People are betting on an ice free arctic with real money (shipping lane discussion).
Many scientists around the world are putting their efforts into developing alternative energy systems, mitigating the effects of global warming, and understanding the risks. That only happens because people take the problem seriously. If everyone put their heads in the ground and ignored the problem, we'd be fucked (more so than we may already be).

Onvacation says

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?

Neither, and using a false choice fallacy to try to win an argument is childish.

Here is a question for you:

Do you believe that releasing CO2 that has been sequestered over tens of millions of years in a few short decades will have ZERO effect? If so, why? If you believe there will be an effect, what do YOU think it will be?

Onvacation says

anon_aa05b says

They are “adaptable” in the current numbers only because all necessary goods and services are brought to them. Millions of people don’t currently live in the desert or wherever you care to pick because it is locally sustainable, so I’m not clear on what point you are/have been trying to make.

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?
The point is the globe is not warming catastrophically.

Non sequitur.

Onvacation says

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?
The point is the globe is not warming catastrophically.

This is why the whole Global Warming hype and hoax is such a joke, and why the 1 degree rise in temps over 130 years is a nothing burger.

People live full time in the Arctic tundra and people live full time in tropical rain forests. It's amazing how people can adapt.

But the "Alarmists" want billions of dollars thrown at "fixing" Global Warming because the temperatures changed 0.04 degrees in a year.

anon_403c8 says

Where would you rather live in a tropical rain forest or an arctic tundra?
The point is the globe is not warming catastrophically.

Non sequitur.

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

The point that you fail to address is that a hot desert is inhospitable and no large populations have ever thrived there. In addition, talking about extremes is not what is important. Yes, a small number of humans can live in the arctic, rainforest or desert. The real question is what happens at the margins. What economic impact will flooding coastal areas have on our country? Warmer does not equal better for growing crops. It takes water and excess heat kills corn. What happens to populations and countries that become uninhabitable or partly uninhabitable?

Heraclitusstudent says

Why are new shipping routes already planned?

We are not talking of scientists. These are business people. Are they lying too?

Sorry, but while it is interesting evidence, the proof will be if it is viable by 2040. Those business people say, no it is not viable now, but maybe in the future. There are many articles saying 2040 or 2050 at the earliest. This is not proof of anything. It is an economic benefit if global warming is real, and it has been far less than the models predicted.

It has been largely as model predicted, 2015 appears on that interactive map, and you guys are fighting a rear guard battle.
You had your days in 2004.
Now every year that passes make you sound more and more like idiots refusing stodgily to bow to reality.

The Russians, the Chinese even, all invest massively in the arctic because they can see - everyone can see - where this is going.

Heraclitusstudent says

It has been largely as model predicted, 2015 appears on that interactive map, and you guys are fighting a rear guard battle.
You had your days in 2004.
Now every year that passes make you sound more and more like idiots refusing stodgily to bow to reality.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/02/newest-ipcc-cmip5-climate-models-fail-at-global-temperature-predictions-too.html

Yeah. Except global temperatures look like this (not flat since 2000):

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

I'm glad you now admit that you believe climate change is real. It's a step in the right direction.

anon_13e7f says

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

I'm glad you now admit that you believe climate change is real. It's a step in the right direction.

Even though I am skeptical, I too find it equally arrogant when people say there is no climate change at all. The climate is always changing. The issues are whether it is caused by man, by how much and what are the real threats if any. I have heard multiple speakers claim adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases crop yields.

anon_13e7f says

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

If denialists could think normally they would have an ALTERNATIVE comprehensive theory, that would have to explain every known facts.
This is not what they are doing. Instead they throw the kitchen sink at the existing theory, criticizing every aspect of it, for the sake of criticizing, and with no alternative explanation.
- So one day there is no warming.
- One day there is warming but it's the sun.
- One day it's CO2 but it comes from volcanoes
- One day it's fossil fuel but its a good thing.
- etc, etc...
As long as it is not the official theory, anything goes.
You can tell the level of intellectual honesty going around.

<
If denialists could think normally they would have an ALTERNATIVE comprehensive theory, that would have to explain every known facts.
This is not what they are doing. Instead they throw the kitchen sink at the existing theory, criticizing every aspect of it, for the sake of criticizing, and with no alternative explanation.
- So one day there is no warming.
- One day there is warming but it's the sun.
- One day it's CO2 but it comes from volcanoes
- One day it's fossil fuel but its a good thing.
- etc, etc...
As long as it is not the official theory, anything goes.
You can tell the level of intellectual honesty going around.

I think that is a valid criticism of the skeptic side. Here is what you are missing:
1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.
2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true. Sorry, in no way did the alarmist models come true. If you use a model to make a prediction and it falls flat on its face, it is not illogical to be skeptical of the model and it is unfair to then criticize someone for "not believing" in climate change. This is science, you believe in things that haven't been proven. If they have been proven, it is not a belief, and I knew an arrogant Oceanography professor at SDSU who in the 90s actually had the gall to claim that man-made global warming was law, not theory.
3. Don't believe me, this is what we had to grow up with.......

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0kL81bgKZnw

Malcolm says

1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.

Except all your arguments have been refuted and you are not doing science: you are reading some denialist blogs, and throwing the kitchen sink at the theory, for the sake of not refusing it.
Scientists that try to debunk a theory can't just point at 1 problem, they also need to provide alternative explanations for the facts that are explained by the theory.

Malcolm says

2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true.

Oh yes it did. It's just not a big difference so far. But it will relentlessly move forward slowly over decades, over centuries. Keep in mind centuries are blinks in the history of mankind.

Malcolm says

in no way did the alarmist models come true

I have not heard of any alarming scenario that came before 2100. The range I've heard is 1 foot to 2 meters by 2100. But it doesn't stop there - unless we stop.

Malcolm says

If you use a model to make a prediction and it falls flat on its face, it is not illogical to be skeptical of the model

Except there is no "a model" there are "models" that are not static. They are refined constantly with new knowledge, and what they are saying is ever more certain.

Heraclitusstudent says

   

The Russians, the Chinese even, all invest massively in the arctic because they can see - everyone can see - where this is going.

How many freight ships transit the arctic?

The climate is always changing. Humans are poisoning the environment. I have never argued different.

I have argued against CAGW. I think man is able to adapt. Now if only we can stop fighting each other.

Onvacation says

How many freight ships transit the arctic?

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/cargo-ship-crosses-the-arctic-without-aid-of-ice-breaker-for-first-time-ever/

anon_13e7f says

Onvacation says

The point you seem to have missed is that rain forests, or any unfrozen land, is better than an icy desert.

You have completely shifted your argument to "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but who cares because hot is better than cold."

I'm glad you now admit that you believe climate change is real. It's a step in the right direction.

You missed the point. The climate is always changing.
The alarmist predicted multiple degrees and multiple feet of sea rise. The alarmist also thought that they could predict and control the climate by limiting co2.
As we are still a quite cool planet and the sea has rose much less than a tide the alarmists have pushed the doomsday out to next century.

I call bs on CAGW.

Heraclitusstudent says

Malcolm says

1. The side putting forward the theory has to defend it from skepticism. That is how science works. It is not a popularity contest.

Except all your arguments have been refuted and you are not doing science: you are reading some denialist blogs, and throwing the kitchen sink at the theory, for the sake of not refusing it.
Scientists that try to debunk a theory can't just point at 1 problem, they also need to provide alternative explanations for the facts that are explained by the theory.

Malcolm says

2. Some of us are old enough to have heard this stuff every decade since our childhood. It didn't come true.

Oh yes it did. It's just not a big difference so far. But it will relentlessly move forward slowly over decades, over centuries. Keep in mind centuries are blinks in the history of ma...

1. It is one thing to say as a blanket statement that my points have all been refuted, what points and by who? I don't read denier blogs, I actually look at both sides to satisfy my curiosity.
2. Point 2, all you are doing is speculating. Not science.
3. You claim no alarmist scenarios before 2100? Try by the 1990s, I even provided the tape. Watch it, learn it, live it.
4. You say there is no model, but earlier you say "the theory" all the models went into a theory, they are all overstated. I can provide videos of that as well. I have compiled a pretty vast group of source videos dealing with every element.

1 - checkout https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.

Heraclitusstudent says

1 - checkout https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.

1 I get that it is a religion to you. Journalists were reporting on the science. All of the predictions failed to materialize. ie, no climate refugees, plenty of polar bears. It is your side that has been debunked and I have many videos made by former colleagues who are disgusted by how the science has been hijacked because it is a "gravy train".
2 Like I have said to many others, predictive theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.
3 I can assure you that I am not confused.

Forgot one of your points. You don't want to go there, there are tons of articles listing the early predictions.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Malcolm says

3 I can assure you that I am not confused.

I can see that you think you are not confused.

Malcolm says

theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.

Seriously? Have you looked at the temp/ice levels graphs posted above on this thread? I guess not.
If you don't see a trend, you are either very dishonest or you need new glasses.

You are not certainly not doing predictive science yourself. The "no warming" crowd failed, and is failing ever more as years go by.

Malcolm says

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

This is not an industry and science is generally not making predictions, it models reality. And models get refined.
United Nations... Pentagon.... seriously? Again show me specific scientific papers making crazy predictions.

Malcolm says

I have heard multiple speakers claim adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases crop yields.

Oh goody! Warm weather and produce!

You're all over the place and not making a whole lot of sense. As for me, I'm guessing that taking enormous amounts of CO2 that was sequestered over tens of millions of years and dumping it into the atmosphere essentially all at once is going to do quite a bit more than provide nice weather and cheap tomatoes.

Here's a question for you: Do you believe that taking enormous amounts of CO2 that was sequestered over tens of millions of years and dumping it into the atmosphere essentially all at once will have no effect and is nothing at all to be concerned about?

Heraclitusstudent says

It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known

You do know that chaotic systems like weather are almost impossible to model ?
Don't you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Seriously? Have you looked at the temp/ice levels graphs posted above on this thread?

2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic and alarmist models do NOT predict the future.

Heraclitusstudent says

show me specific scientific papers making crazy predictions.

Michael Mann s hockey stick.

According to his theory the temp should be several degrees hotter and asymptotically heading for hell!
But instead the temp is going down.

Onvacation says

You do know that chaotic systems

Weather is chaotic. Climate is not necessarily. Equating the two is a basic misunderstanding of some of the deniers. When they make such claims, they betray massive ignorance.


Onvacation says

2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic

Two degrees and a foot are quantifiable measures that scientists use. Catastrophic is a rhetorical term that you use either because you are too lazy to quantify things or you are purposefully making vague statements so that you can shift around according to the argument at hand.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Weather is chaotic. Climate is not necessarily. Equating the two is a basic misunderstanding of some of the deniers. When they make such claims, they betray massive ignorance.

Are You not aware of the butterfly in China theory?
Climate is the history of weather and is as chaotic as weather.
Religious people call anyone that won't accept their dogma "ignorant deniers". Malcolm is right.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Catastrophic is a rhetorical term that you use either because you are too lazy to quantify things or you are purposefully making vague statements so that you can shift around according to the argument at hand.

No. Catastrophe is what the alarmist tell children will happen if they don't worship at the alter of global warming.
I am just injecting some reality into the message of doom.

Onvacation says

Are You not aware of the butterfly in China theory?

I've been aware of it since the early 90s, when I read Gleick's book. I also encountered it in a few graduate level courses. That is in reference to weather, not climate. Chaos theory can be seen from only a few nonlinear equations, so I'm sure that some climate models are chaotic. However, a simple one does not have to be. That is why I wrote that climate models are not necessarily chaotic. The longer the modeling term is, the less relevant the chaotic terms are. Trying to be accurate in the short term requires better modelling chaotic things like how many forest fires are their going to be next year or what year is a specific glacier going to melt.
Year to year variations are not predictable by climate models. That is why the whole argument about 0.04 degrees from one year to the next not being significant was meaningless. Even a decade is harder to predict for various reasons. This is all explained here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade