BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

So, let's see how the 4 NCAs are faring over the most recent climatological period of 30 years.



Perhaps their warnings are getting more strident with time because Mother Nature is not cooperating and they are panicking?

As well as reasoned and fact-based refutations of the alarmism in the NCA.

Backup

Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-24, 06:50, said:

Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-24, 07:10, said:

Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-24, 09:05, said:

I repeat my question from earlier in the thread:

I asked a question that should have been simple. Will 2019 be one of the top 10 hottest years? Top 20? Or just average?

How can this not be an easy question for you? Unless your research was tabulated by Dennison's 400 pound hacker sitting on a bed?

GOP Shrugs Off Bombshell Climate Report

Quote

The problem in a nutshell.

johnu, on 2018-November-25, 19:22, said:

I guess the Republicans and Fox Propaganda have more important matters to contemplate:

CNN’s Brian Stelter Roasts Fox For Focusing On Ocasio-Cortez’s Shoes More Than Climate Report

In fairness to Fox Propaganda, fashion is a 2 1/2 trillion dollar industry.

More factual analysis of observations concerning the California fires and a purported link to the effects of GW

http://cliffmass.blo...ium=twitter&m=1

Dennison On Climate Change Report: ‘I Don’t Believe It’

Quote

Well, that settles it.

Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-26, 09:45, said:

What kind of quack is this guy? He didn't mention raking once as the reason for the fires.

Dennison said:

Quote

I was wrong on climate change. Why can’t other conservatives admit it, too?

Quote

For the denier trolls, science and reason does not come into play of course, and they'll keep posting. But for the governing party of the US, the current know-nothing posture is really unfortunate.

It's only a matter of time before the fossil fuel industry switches gears and maintains that they are not to blame because everyone knew that fossil fuels were responsible for global warming and yet nothing was done. The cigarette industry wrote the playbook for that.

Science and reason are anathema to climastrology. Over the last 30 years , billions have been spent to "improve" the estimate of climate sensitivity (CO2's effect on global temperature and our only way to contribute or not to CAGW) from 1.5 - 4.5 to ... wait for it ... 1.5 - 4.5 ! BUT now the IPCC relies on "expert opinion" rather than the latest experimental/theoretical values that have all been in the 1.0 - 1.5 range and thus, no longer a problem. So much for the scientific method and reasoned analysis. The IPCC is a political entity and eschews science for agenda dictated by the UNFCCC.

Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-26, 17:06, said:

Quoted from somewhere like a true 3%'er

Dennison Says He’s Too Intelligent To Believe In Climate Change

Wow, he must be the smartest guy in the room. I really believe that in all sincerity because the other "guys" in the room don't appear to be any smarter.

Quote

Duhhh, modeling takes data and tries to project into the future. You can't collect data from the future because ... wait for it ... it's not the future yet.

Quote

Duhhh, there were a number of projections based on several levels of assumptions. He would have had no problem seeing them if he had actually read any of the report, instead of only reading Republican talking points.

The new study uses a similar method to the energy budget model approach. However, instead of matching the global temperature record to global warming, the new research attempts to match temperature records to natural, long-term fluctuations in temperature.

Looking at natural variability rather than the warming trend allowed the scientists to exclude a range of uncertainties associated with human-caused climate change, Cox explains:

“Normally the way this [research] is done is by looking at the historical record warming, which makes sense. We’ve seen 1C of warming, roughly speaking, and so you may think that must tell you how sensitive the climate is. But it doesn’t. The main reason it doesn’t is that we don’t know how much energy or heat we’ve put in the system in terms of radiative forcing – greenhouse gases.”

To understand how historical temperature fluctuations have changed over the past century, the researchers first removed the global warming trend from a set of observational temperature data.

They then compared this data to results from a series of 22 global climate models. Some models had lower climate sensitivity, while some some models had higher climate sensitivity.

The results are shown on the chart below. On the chart, black dots show natural fluctuations in temperature from 1940 to 2020. Each line represents the results from one model, with magenta lines showing results from higher sensitivity models and green showing the results from models with lower climate sensitivity.




Most interesting, using those climate models to find the "natural" sensitivity by compariing model results. Expert opinion indeed. All of the most recent assays and evaluations using models, measured temperatures demonstrate why there was a need to "update" the need for speed.

Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-29, 13:44, said:

QFP

Typical alarmist cherry pie

Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-30, 20:54, said:

Persistance pays



but then



So both are indicating a value for 2019 of about +0.3 anomaly. Despite [CO2], the best forecast is same old, same old.

Al_U_Card, on 2018-December-01, 15:13, said:

When Al_U_Card quotes interesting statistics, JohnU's "YADA" replies annoy and contribute nothing to the debate. I prefer the Johnu posts, where he tries to refute Al_U_Card's controversial thesis by providing arguments, quotes, and links from relevant main-stream research.