Global warming less extreme than feared?

[Moonbeam]

Doc Savage Fan: I don't know what motivates me...I am what I am and I accept that.

M: First off, while I am glad you answered my question I had no particular person in mind when I asked. I was also asking myself.

DSF: One could say that I'm a hardwired automaton unlikely to change one wit and they wouldn't be far from the truth. All an ignorant nobody like me can hope for is mercy.

M: I believe we aren't hard wired, but trapped by our unconsciousness and that makes it very difficult but not impossible to change. Thus the only mercy you will get from me is what I give myself.

DSF: As far as your question goes "So what would change about your attitude toward climate warming if you didn't know anything?" I don't know anything...so nothing would change. Is that a trick question?

M: No. But if you know nothing how do you have an attitude that won't change? Wouldn't you claim you have no attitude if you have no knowledge? I think you show an attitude that is different from mine and like all rose colored lenses viewing, don't know it. My point was that we seem not to see our own unconscious motivations because we don't want to. I note, for example, that a bird just flew into my redwood tree. I used up so much sugar thinking what to write that I had to shift to looking at the garden to get some rest.

[Jaskalas]

Originally Posted by Subyman

This stalling has been long predicted due to a major increase in aerosols being emitted by China and other rising counties. Once China and others decide that the effect of aerosols on their country outweigh the benefits of releasing them, we could begin to see temperature rise again.

Since when? We're below the bottom of the GISS 1988 and IPCC 1990 scenarios.

The Met Office just recently adjusted their forecast downward. They've all had a biased outlook of projecting temperatures higher than they actually are. Now you proclaim they knew it all along...

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan

I agree that there are none on this forum that have the expertise to independently gather evidence and produce the answer to the explain global climate variations. And yes, we are at the mercy of the folks who gather and assess the data. However, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to make these two strawman statements. Has someone on this forum claimed they have the expertise to independently gather evidence and produce the answer to the explain global climate variations? Has someone here claimed or even suggested that we're not left at the mercy of the folks who gather and assess the data?

It is called an opening statement.... that which sets the stage for the rest that follows (hopefully )in my quoted post.

The premise is that well... as I said, no one apparently has the expertise to gather and assess the data so they are presenting the findings of 'experts' as evidence for their position... they or you are advocates. In this case you present evidence that in some manner attempts to refute the evidence presented by the advocates in favor of their position and contrary to yours.



Since the answer to my two questions above is obviously "no" it seems to me that you may be the one who's accepting their biased perception as truth which apparently satisfies some individually held belief. Think about it.

I believe that I am without the expertise to independently determine the truth on Climate Change. I can only look at what I can see and that is not sufficient to have a belief one way or another. Something seems to be melting the ice on the North and South Pole areas but who or what can be labeled the cause eludes me.


There is no consensus on consensus. Here's a summary of a paper written on this subject which I highly recommend. http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/ FYI, Judith Curry is a highly respected climatologist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

Your court room analogy is fine assuming all the evidence has been presented; however, this is not the case. New evidence is coming in every day which is molding our understanding of how our climate works. It's clear that our global climate is incredibly complex and there are many uncertainties despite everything we know to date. To make exaggerated judgments without knowing all the facts of the case is not science...it's just someone rationalizing their personal biases and beliefs before they have all the facts.

Sometimes we are acting prudently when we act without all the possible evidence in hand. Again, that presumes action is warranted by the evidence in hand.
We can think of many examples where the magnitude of a threat forces us to take remedial action even when the threat might be mitigated by actions not at all related to ours. One of those 'better safe than sorry scenarios.'


I agree with you that it would be prudent to reduce CO2 in a rational way.

Rational to the Conservative is not going to be rational to the Progressive... BUT, if we can get both sides to ostensibly save the planet while stimulating the economy then rationality will kill two birds with one stone... so to speak.

You probably heard the comment; having 100 Economists in a room is certain to provide 100 different opinions... well... that is probably true and true because to say what another says garners no applause if true and god forbid if it is false...
As you know, to show your peers to be wrong is what Scientists strive for... It is how you become famous other than discovering something. But it is also the Scientific process.... falsification of the prediction is what gets us closer to the truth.

A phenomenologist might say that both sides on this topic can't be right... The easy way is to add up the numbers and apply a weighted factor based on some reasonable criteria and go with the biggest number...

Or... do nothing and await the next large Asteroid or Comet hit and contemplate how to sort that mess out at the same time as Climate Change.

[Moonbeam]

Originally Posted by LunarRay

You probably heard the comment; having 100 Economists in a room is certain to provide 100 different opinions... well... that is probably true and true because to say what another says garners no applause if true and god forbid if it is false...
As you know, to show your peers to be wrong is what Scientists strive for... It is how you become famous other than discovering something. But it is also the Scientific process.... falsification of the prediction is what gets us closer to the truth.

A phenomenologist might say that both sides on this topic can't be right... The easy way is to add up the numbers and apply a weighted factor based on some reasonable criteria and go with the biggest number...

Or... do nothing and await the next large Asteroid or Comet hit and contemplate how to sort that mess out at the same time as Climate Change.

If we were to launch a few hundred feet of ocean into space we could save ourselves from rising sea levels and create an ice shield. If we crystallized the ice is space to insure it's transparency, it would cool the rays of the sun as they passed through it, saving us also from global warming and stopping asteroids and comets at the same time. And thing of all the jobs. We could create a ladder of people and and buckets brigade.

[LunarRay]

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If we were to launch a few hundred feet of ocean into space we could save ourselves from rising sea levels and create an ice shield. If we crystallized the ice is space to insure it's transparency, it would cool the rays of the sun as they passed through it, saving us also from global warming and stopping asteroids and comets at the same time. And thing of all the jobs. We could create a ladder of people and and buckets brigade.

I understand that Senator Boxer has a need for 'chief of staff' of the committee she chairs on the Energy stuff. With such an unique and totally promising approach to what you believe a Climate emergency I think your expertise would be best put to use in the furtherance of this nation's Political consideration on the issue...
If you're interested in this position kindly send your thoughts to her office via email and start packing your bags since I'll be putting in a good word for your selection.

As an aside, do you think it would be helpful to separate the deuterium bits given they are heavier and the labor unions might balk at excessive loads... Maybe you could build a very high tree house and have the Post Office simply deliver the water... the PO can use the work, I'm told. Wouldn't have to lick the stamps either.

[Jaskalas]

The story behind "its not as bad as we thought!" continues to expand:

BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC

IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007).

And:
A sensitive matter | Posted by James Annan at Friday, February 01, 2013

But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

[Darwin333]

Originally Posted by Incorruptible

This global warming BS was never a problem but special interests know that they can use it to further their agenda. Bring in a cap and trade, punish the US and 1st world countries while ignoring india and china and wealth transfers

Why would it bother you either way? The Muslims are going to get us all long before global warming can hurt us.

[werepossum]

Originally Posted by Darwin333

Why would it bother you either way? The Muslims are going to get us all long before global warming can hurt us.

And then the Chinese are going to get the Muslims. And then global warming is going to get the Chinese. And then the Indians will be back on top - 'cause as far as they're concerned it's always been way too frickin' hot and it always will be way too frickin' hot, but they're used to it.

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally Posted by Jaskalas

The story behind "its not as bad as we thought!" continues to expand:

BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC
And:
A sensitive matter | Posted by James Annan at Friday, February 01, 2013

Anyway, there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5. - James Annan

Thanks for the link. Wow...that's a very interesting quote from James Annan.

I also heard that a leaked version of the latest IPCC report suggests the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought. I'm not sure if they're referring to GCR at this point; however, I doubt it as Kirkby's work is very preliminary. The "consensus" is moving...this is good.

[Moonbeam]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan

Thanks for the link. Wow...that's a very interesting quote from James Annan.

I also heard that a leaked version of the latest IPCC report suggests the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought. I'm not sure if they're referring to GCR at this point; however, I doubt it as Kirkby's work is very preliminary. The "consensus" is moving...this is good.

How can the fact that the consensus is moving be good. It can only be good if it is moving toward what is true, no? If the consensus is moving in the direction of what is factually wrong, that would be bad, I would think.

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

How can the fact that the consensus is moving be good. It can only be good if it is moving toward what is true, no? If the consensus is moving in the direction of what is factually wrong, that would be bad, I would think.

Agree.

[Moonbeam]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan

Agree.

So then if the consensus is moving away from disaster toward something less so or completely and that is factual, that then is a good thing with which I would also agree.