Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Go sailing for one day and dang get jumped for everything.
Jack you need to reread posts 3783, 3817, and 3821. I never said that the sahel was greening I just pointed out how out of date your drought data was on the subject

My apologies.

It was Stu who provided that misinformation. You just quoted it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, if you want to pretend you are approaching this scientifically, perhaps start by answering Hans von Storch's puzzle - why models based on CO2 climate sensitivity have failed. You could win a Nobel. Or you, and Sailoar, can continue to cut and paste stuff from websites you hardly seem to understand and pretend your faith system is grounded in data, instead of your politics.

von Stroch has done so already.

And

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, if you want to pretend you are approaching this scientifically, perhaps start by answering Hans von Storch's puzzle - why models based on CO2 climate sensitivity have failed. You could win a Nobel. Or you, and Sailoar, can continue to cut and paste stuff from websites you hardly seem to understand and pretend your faith system is grounded in data, instead of your politics.

von Stroch has done so already.

Die Klimazwiebel: Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita: on our paper on stagnation and trends

And

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Not sure what you are asking?



If heat is lost to space, it was not "blocked".

Heat is radiated toward space by the warm bodies of the planet. Of that radiated heat some is trapped in the air. What percentage that is "trapped" is attributable to CO2 gas in the atmosphere. It should be a function of the PPM. At such a low PPM logic would seem to say it can't be a significant percentage of the total. There are other GHGs that are more effective than CO2.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Heat is radiated toward space by the warm bodies of the planet. Of that radiated heat some is trapped in the air. What percentage that is "trapped" is attributable to CO2 gas in the atmosphere. It should be a function of the PPM. At such a low PPM logic would seem to say it can't be a significant percentage of the total. There are other GHGs that are more effective than CO2.

Do not get caught in the trap of CO2 being a "trace" substance. O3 is also a trace substance at 3-10 ppm, but it protects us from UVB. The human requires selenium; at 400 ppm it becomes toxic.

H2O is recognized as a more dominant GHG. But something has to increase the temperature before atmospheric H2O increases. That something has been the 40% increase in CO2 over the past 250 years. Using carbon isotope analysis that increase can be directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels.

[jackdale]

For the auditory and visual learners amongst us. Schneider says the science is not settled. I agree.

https://youtu.be/4_eJdX6y4hM

[TurninTurtle]

The science was settled that the earth was the center of the universe.... until someone proved it wasn't.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

The science was settled that the earth was the center of the universe.... until someone proved it wasn't.

Both were poltical statements.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Going inline...

A completely substance free post. Nice work LE, and you did it in far fewer words than usual.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

von Stroch has done so already.

And

Not sure you are able to tell the difference between a statement of fact by von Storch that the models have failed and his "gut" feeling.

You rely on your "gut" feelings for scientific conclusion Jack?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The models and the folks on the ground show drought while the satellites show greening.

Doesn't that tell you anything?

More intentional misinformation it appears.

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/storie...ller-sahel.pdf

"The main reason for the greening of the Sahara and the Sahel has been an increase in rainfall since the mid-1980s. Of the 40 rainfall stations across the
Sahel, most of them have been observing an increase in rainfall." So no, your statement regarding satellite data is false since satellites are not rain stations.

"The United Nations’ Africa Report of 2008 confirmed that the greening of the Sahel is now well established and that increases in rainfall are the main driver of the change in the vegetation cover. The report noted that there was a 50% increase in vegetation in parts of Mali, Mauritania and Chad during 1982-2003." In addition to rain stations measuring increased rainfall, U.N. folks on the ground are reporting increased greening of formerly desert areas.

In so many ways, you are an archetypal warmist. Immune to the import of contrary data, pretentious in the stating of your opinions and generally rude. Bit of a hat trick.

[Gadagirl]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory

So, looking at these maps , I'm concerned for my future and children and my grandchildren's future.

[TurninTurtle]

Generally I would see turning desert into farmland as a good thing.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Both were poltical statements.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

As was that youTube you just posted. Not that it wasn't informative, just entirely one-sided and thus another transparent propaganda piece. Proclaiming that the "science is not settled," or that one "accepts the data" without further recognition and analysis of where the controversy lies is not only unpersuasive but is itself a logical fallacy.

In other words, you have throughout this thread been drawing conclusions you claim must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only maybe true. As Delfin has articulated quite well, such obviously flawed arguments only sway those already convinced, but at the same they validate the suspicions of the skeptics, and confirm the steadfast views of the deniers.

So your approach strikes me as unnecessary and therefore quite odd, since it wouldn't be implausible to say that the "weight" of the evidence supports your view. Perhaps your inability to recognize this can be explained by Delfin's equally prescient comments about the narcissistic element that's in play. Quite strange.

[TurninTurtle]

We know gravity works... we don't really know why, so its called a theory.

MMGW appears to work... but we have uncontrolled variables that also can explain everything going on without CO2... So its a theory.

1 + 1 = 2 is a fact.

Don't tell me your theory is a fact until there's no conflicting data and we have plenty of conflicting data.

Sunspots / solar activity could explain the cycle of global cooling of the 70's and warming of the 80's/90s and the CO2 could be a symptom, not the cause.