Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

Also, note that at the 19' mark Dr Davies said a high carbon scenario, ie worst case scenario, has temperatures increasing an average of 13 degrees across North America, with by far the largest change in the far north, which brings the average up for the rest of the continent. This is not out of line with other projections out there. Disprove this.

That's quite an easy one to disprove. If you zoom in on the map and see the temperature scale, the dark orange covering most of the US is a range of 10'-12.5'. He also says that the dark red in the Arctic is upwards of 25' of warming.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Are we watching the same thing? He says nothing about the high carbon scenario being unlikely, and claims that the high carbon scenario IS our current path. This couldn't be further from the truth. IPCC emissions pathway 8.5 was their "worst case" scenario, and only projected 4'C of warming by 2100. At the time, RCP 8.5 was considered unlikely because it relied on unrealisitic energy policies like increased coal burning. It is now becoming clear the RCP 8.5 is an impossibility: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-scenarios-may-no-longer-be-the-most-likely/

Where in the world is this guy getting 13'F of warming from?

If you listen to his presentation he says where he's getting the 13F from...again, he's giving you a range of possibilities. why is this such a difficult concept for you?

[WMD]

That's quite an easy one to disprove. If you zoom in on the map and see the temperature scale, the dark orange covering most of the US is a range of 10'-12.5'. He also says that the dark red in the Arctic is upwards of 25' of warming.

Huh? You sir are a fucking idiot.

But I'm glad you know more than climate scientists. People who are a danger to society (and themselves) are the ones who think they know more than multiple specialists who spend their lives studying something.

By the way, the IPCC worst case scenario of 8.5 C - what is that in F? Can you answer that?

Also, does an 8.5C global increase mean that everywhere will rise 8.5C?

[ron johnson]

If you listen to his presentation he says where he's getting the 13F from...again, he's giving you a range of possibilities. why is this such a difficult concept for you?

You made me listen to the stupid presentation again, and he doesn't say where he's getting 13'F from. Are you delusional or what? First you say he said it's unlikely (not true), then you say he didn't say we are on that path (not true), and now you say he says where he's getting 13'F from (not true).

[WMD]

RJ, you didn't answer- what is the IPCC worst case increase of 8.5C in F?

[ron johnson]

Huh? You sir are a fucking idiot.

But I'm glad you know more than climate scientists. People who are a danger to society (and themselves) are the ones who think they know more than multiple specialists who spend their lives studying something.

By the way, the IPCC worst case scenario of 8.5 C - what is that in F? Can you answer that?

Also, does an 8.5C global increase mean that everywhere will rise 8.5C?

I am a fucking idiot because I easily disproved your challenge to me?

You sure like to appeal to authority even if it's clear the authority doesn't know what they're talking about. Judith Curry has the title of climate scientist, why don't you listen to her?

IPCC worst case scenario RCP8.5 =/ 8.5'C of warming. RCP8.5 projects 4'C of warming by 2100, or 7.2'F. It is accepted as a nearly impossible emission scenario at this point, so the charlatan you are defending is more than doubling the worst possible warming for NA. It is incredibly irresponsible for him to use his position of authority to present this junk to the public.

[WMD]

I am a fucking idiot because I easily disproved your challenge to me?

You sure like to appeal to authority even if it's clear the authority doesn't know what they're talking about. Judith Curry has the title of climate scientist, why don't you listen to her?

IPCC worst case scenario RCP8.5 =/ 8.5'C of warming. RCP8.5 projects 4'C of warming by 2100, or 7.2'F. It is accepted as a nearly impossible emission scenario at this point, so the charlatan you are defending is more than doubling the worst possible warming for NA. It is incredibly irresponsible for him to use his position of authority to present this junk to the public.

You still didn't answer- what is 8.5C in F???

Actually RCP 8.5 would warm the planet 4.9 C or about 9F. Would this be the same everywhere? Could some places hardly warm at all while others warm a lot?

Judith Curry has been debunked many times. She's a paid quack.

And yes, I listen to a peer reviewed and respected scientist over some anonymous poster on a ski forum who is only on the forum to spot BSL (what is that Ron?) about climate change

[ron johnson]

You still didn't answer- what is 8.5C in F???

Why does it matter what 8.5'C is in 'F?

Actually RCP 8.5 would warm the planet 4.9 C or about 9F.

Okay buddy, just take the absolute upper bound of RCP 8.5 to get your 4.9'C. But we already know RCP 8.5 isn't going to happen anyway.

Would this be the same everywhere? Could some places hardly warm at all while others warm a lot?

There is no way the US is warming 13'F, and the arctic is warming 25'F, if the globe is only warming 4'C.

Judith Curry has been debunked many times. She's a paid quack.

Not true.

And yes, I listen to a peer reviewed and respected scientist over some anonymous poster on a ski forum who is only on the forum to spot BSL (what is that Ron?) about climate change

How pathetic is it that an anonymous poster on a ski forum knows more about possible emission scenarios and potential warming than your "peer reviewed and respected scientist"? How pathetic is it that even after proving that the guy doesn't know what he is talking about you still stand by him? Like I said before, your mentality is dangerous.

[ex-powderbroker]

judith curry: “The hiatus in global warming since 1998...”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2945/n...ear-on-record/

hmmmm

[JohnnyTyndall]

Just a heads up, the numbers in the RCP scenarios refer to the radiative forcing in W/m2, not temp change.

[k2skier112]

judith curry: “The hiatus in global warming since 1998...”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2945/n...ear-on-record/

hmmmm

that woman is a fucking cunt, just like jr...

https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.577
Whispered discreetly at conferences or in meeting rooms, these claims might be accepted as part of the frequently contentious process of a still evolving area of science. Stated publicly on some of the same Web sites that broke the so-called Climategate e-mails last fall, they are considered by many to be a betrayal, earning Curry epithets from her colleagues ranging from "naive" to "bizarre" to "nasty" to worse.

All of which sets up the two competing story lines, which are, on the surface at least, equally plausible. The first paints Curry as a peacemaker—someone who might be able to restore some civility to the debate and edge the public toward meaningful action. By frankly acknowledging mistakes and encouraging her colleagues to treat skeptics with respect, she hopes to bring about a meeting of the minds.

The alternative version paints her as a dupe—someone whose well-meaning efforts have only poured fuel on the fire. By this account, engaging with the skeptics is pointless because they cannot be won over. They have gone beyond the pale, taking their arguments to the public and distributing e-mails hacked from personal computer accounts rather than trying to work things out at conferences and in journal papers.

[rideit]

Or just a ‘useful Idiot’, much like Ron.
Do either of them know they are being used?

[WMD]

Why does it matter what 8.5'C is in 'F?


Okay buddy, just take the absolute upper bound of RCP 8.5 to get your 4.9'C. But we already know RCP 8.5 isn't going to happen

Uh, dude, because we are talking about the worst case scenario. As is Davies. I know you prefer to cherry pick but why would we not use the worst case scenario number for the worst case scenario?

There is no way the US is warming 13'F, and the arctic is warming 25'F, if the globe is only warming 4'C.

Show us your work that says otherwise?

Maybe it isn't true, but prove it.

Northern hemisphere will warm more than southern, and northern latitudes (polar regions) will warm more than lower latitudes. If the global average will be 9F of warming, it is entirely possible that NA could warm 13F.

How pathetic is it that an anonymous poster on a ski forum knows more about possible emission scenarios and potential warming than your "peer reviewed and respected scientist"? How pathetic is it that even after proving that the guy doesn't know what he is talking about you still stand by him? Like I said before, your mentality is dangerous.

How am I claiming to know more about possible emissions scenarios than this peer reviewed and respected scientist? I'm suggesting we pay attention to him, and others like him.

Who proved Davies doesn't know what he's talking about? Certainly you haven't. If you can, do it.

And which is it, am I standing by him or claiming I know more than him? It can't be both.

It's true, "danger" is my middle name.

You are losing and your arguments are getting dumber by the day.

But you provide laughs so thanks for that.

And you are right, it doesn't matter what 8.5C is in F. I just wanted to see if you could do the math and what kind of bullshit you'd spew.

[ron johnson]

Uh, dude, because we are talking about the worst case scenario. As is Davies. I know you prefer to cherry pick but why would we not use the worst case scenario number for the worst case scenario?

No, we aren't talking about the worst case scenario. Davies refers to it as the current path. How lost in this conversation are you?

how us your work that says otherwise?

Maybe it isn't true, but prove it.

Northern hemisphere will warm more than southern, and northern latitudes (polar regions) will warm more than lower latitudes. If the global average will be 9F of warming, it is entirely possible that NA could warm 13F.

Considering how much warmth he is showing for nearly 1/4 of the globe, I guess the whole southern hemisphere won't be warming at all or something?

How am I claiming to know more about possible emissions scenarios than this peer reviewed and respected scientist? I'm suggesting we pay attention to him, and others like him.

Who proved Davies doesn't know what he's talking about? Certainly you haven't. If you can, do it.

And which is it, am I standing by him or claiming I know more than him? It can't be both.

It's true, "danger" is my middle name.

You are losing and your arguments are getting dumber by the day.

But you provide laughs so thanks for that.

And you are right, it doesn't matter what 8.5C is in F. I just wanted to see if you could do the math and what kind of bullshit you'd spew.

When I said "anonymous poster on a ski forum", I was referring to myself. I know more about potential emission scenarios and temperature projections than Davies, and I certainly proved that he doesn't know what he is talking about. He tries to use a worst case scenario temperature map as our current path, which is even worse than the unplausible worst case scenario from the IPCC. And somehow you are still blind to this.

[ron johnson]

judith curry: “The hiatus in global warming since 1998...”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2945/n...ear-on-record/

hmmmm

This is what the temperature graph looked like when that quote was made:

[ron johnson]

that woman is a fucking cunt, just like jr...

https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.577
Whispered discreetly at conferences or in meeting rooms, these claims might be accepted as part of the frequently contentious process of a still evolving area of science. Stated publicly on some of the same Web sites that broke the so-called Climategate e-mails last fall, they are considered by many to be a betrayal, earning Curry epithets from her colleagues ranging from "naive" to "bizarre" to "nasty" to worse.

All of which sets up the two competing story lines, which are, on the surface at least, equally plausible. The first paints Curry as a peacemaker—someone who might be able to restore some civility to the debate and edge the public toward meaningful action. By frankly acknowledging mistakes and encouraging her colleagues to treat skeptics with respect, she hopes to bring about a meeting of the minds.

The alternative version paints her as a dupe—someone whose well-meaning efforts have only poured fuel on the fire. By this account, engaging with the skeptics is pointless because they cannot be won over. They have gone beyond the pale, taking their arguments to the public and distributing e-mails hacked from personal computer accounts rather than trying to work things out at conferences and in journal papers.

Was that your attempt at a hit piece?

[Adolf Allerbush]

According to RJ the NA continent makes up 1/4 of the earth. Yup, he said it.

[ron johnson]

According to RJ the NA continent makes up 1/4 of the earth. Yup, he said it.

Might want to take another look. It includes just about all of the N Atlantic and part of the Pacific.

You've made quite an entrance into this thread, be careful or you will overtake SumJongGuy for the worst batting percentage. Speaking of, what happened to him?

[WMD]

No, we aren't talking about the worst case scenario. Davies refers to it as the current path. How lost in this conversation are you?



Considering how much warmth he is showing for nearly 1/4 of the globe, I guess the whole southern hemisphere won't be warming at all or something?



When I said "anonymous poster on a ski forum", I was referring to myself. I know more about potential emission scenarios and temperature projections than Davies, and I certainly proved that he doesn't know what he is talking about. He tries to use a worst case scenario temperature map as our current path, which is even worse than the unplausible worst case scenario from the IPCC. And somehow you are still blind to this.

Do you think there is a worse scenario than our current path? Not a realistic one. We are currently on a path to catastrophe, and will almost certainly do at least a little better than that.

Yes, if the planet as a whole will warm 9*, one portion of it warming 12* means the rest won't warm at all. Math. Lol.

Are you Donald Trump? You sure think highly of yourself while the rest of us are too dumb to get your brilliance. You sure put Dr Davies in his place.

[ron johnson]

Do you think there is a worse scenario than our current path? Not a realistic one. We are currently on a path to catastrophe, and will almost certainly do at least a little better than that.

What is the point of your question? Obviously there are worse case scenarios than the current path.

Yes, if the planet as a whole will warm 9*, one portion of it warming 12* means the rest won't warm at all. Math. Lol.

And what about that big chunk of the arctic showing upwards of 25' warming? What do you think that will do to the average?

Are you Donald Trump? You sure think highly of yourself while the rest of us are too dumb to get your brilliance. You sure put Dr Davies in his place.

I don't think I'm anything special, maybe it just comes across that way when you're that dumb.

[ex-powderbroker]

This is what the temperature graph looked like when that quote was made:

This thread is the car crash you can't look away from.

You previously acknowledge that is is warming, only that it isn't caused as much by humans as the consensus.

Why does it matter if the warming cycle started (really just) before the industrial age, especially in light of the fact that weather stations continued to be built at a rapid clip in the late 1800's early 1900's and the records were more standardized and better kept. Didn't we have a little cooling mid century too? The issue is not whether the climate was ever static but how much man we are contributing to a climate that we haven't had according to tree rings, core ice samples, etc.

Why is it bullshit if every ten years we knock all the previous hottest years at the ball park?
old news, illustrates the general spirit: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/projected-ranks

Earlier, you called the hockey stick graph the holy grail of fake graphs when i first got in this thread back in march although that chart seems to correspond exactly with noaa's temps recorded 20 years after, which is a pretty far cry from the 'climate change stopped in 1998'. So why is that bullshit?

As an individual that likes snowsports living in Tahoe (although it doesn't seem like you have lived there long enough to observe snow lines, season length, or the droughts), are you concerned that the fanaticism against global warming can be coopted against other ways you personally like to use and live on the planet: clean air to breathe, fewer plastics in the ocean that we fish and swim in, as a cudgel to push industry like mining / foresting into previously unvisited places where animals were not disturbed, etc (i get that there could be a slippery slope argument on both sides but dont see the harm in conservation because we can do so much damage so quickly).

A lot of the arguing seems like you can give Judith Curry a pass if she said something dumb at one time she gets a pass, but if you don't like the way Davies presents a worst case scenario he's a devious schmuck.

[ron johnson]

This thread is the car crash you can't look away from.

You previously acknowledge that is is warming, only that it isn't caused as much by humans as the consensus.

Why does it matter if the warming cycle started (really just) before the industrial age, especially in light of the fact that weather stations continued to be built at a rapid clip in the late 1800's early 1900's and the records were more standardized and better kept. Didn't we have a little cooling mid century too? The issue is not whether the climate was ever static but how much man we are contributing to a climate that we haven't had according to tree rings, core ice samples, etc.

Why is it bullshit if every ten years we knock all the previous hottest years at the ball park?
old news, illustrates the general spirit: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/projected-ranks

Earlier, you called the hockey stick graph the holy grail of fake graphs when i first got in this thread back in march although that chart seems to correspond exactly with noaa's temps recorded 20 years after, which is a pretty far cry from the 'climate change stopped in 1998'. So why is that bullshit?

Since you are new to the thread, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what my positions are. How much warming is natural vs unnatural is not something I have argued about. My main point of contention with temperature is how much uncertainty about the human role there actually is. We are told there is a great consensus on this, but that is not the case - demonstrated by the fact that they can't even figure out the ECS of CO2. They estimate it to be between 1'C and 4.5'C.

If you want to read about the problems with the hockey stick:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress...trick.2003.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2004GL021750

As an individual that likes snowsports living in Tahoe (although it doesn't seem like you have lived there long enough to observe snow lines, season length, or the droughts), are you concerned that the fanaticism against global warming can be coopted against other ways you personally like to use and live on the planet: clean air to breathe, fewer plastics in the ocean that we fish and swim in, as a cudgel to push industry like mining / foresting into previously unvisited places where animals were not disturbed, etc (i get that there could be a slippery slope argument on both sides but dont see the harm in conservation because we can do so much damage so quickly).

My big concern is that when the climate doomsday predictions don't come true, no one will ever listen to environmentalists again. I do care a lot about the environment and I think it's a shame that the environmental movement has been hijacked by CO2 phobia.

A lot of the arguing seems like you can give Judith Curry a pass if she said something dumb at one time she gets a pass, but if you don't like the way Davies presents a worst case scenario he's a devious schmuck.

I don't see what is dumb about what Curry said. It seems quite reasonable to question why there had been a prolonged pause in warming despite a substantial CO2 increase during that period.

The problem with Davies is he presented a worst case scenario that was implausible to begin with, as the current path we are on. It's incredible irresponsible for someone who's job it is to know this stuff, to present this type of misinformation to the public.

[MultiVerse]

Globally 19 of the 20 overall warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the six hottest-ever years were 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Climate and temperature are affected by a lot of factors but there are no other factors such as El Niño, volcanoes, or periodic variations in solar activity (which is tiny relative to total solar output) that account for the long term increasing temperature trend other than greenhouse gases.

Temperature oscillates up and down from year-to-year due to those other factors but the bottom line is greenhouse gasses dominate the long term warming trend.

[ex-powderbroker]

Since you are new to the thread, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what my positions are. How much warming is natural vs unnatural is not something I have argued about. My main point of contention with temperature is how much uncertainty about the human role there actually is. We are told there is a great consensus on this, but that is not the case - demonstrated by the fact that they can't even figure out the ECS of CO2. They estimate it to be between 1'C and 4.5'C.

If you want to read about the problems with the hockey stick:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress...trick.2003.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2004GL021750



My big concern is that when the climate doomsday predictions don't come true, no one will ever listen to environmentalists again. I do care a lot about the environment and I think it's a shame that the environmental movement has been hijacked by CO2 phobia.



I don't see what is dumb about what Curry said. It seems quite reasonable to question why there had been a prolonged pause in warming despite a substantial CO2 increase during that period.

The problem with Davies is he presented a worst case scenario that was implausible to begin with, as the current path we are on. It's incredible irresponsible for someone who's job it is to know this stuff, to present this type of misinformation to the public.

Globally 19 of the 20 overall warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the six hottest-ever years were 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Climate and temperature are affected by a lot of factors but there are no other factors such as El Niño, volcanoes, or periodic variations in solar activity (which is tiny relative to total solar output) that account for the long term increasing temperature trend other than greenhouse gases.

Temperature oscillates up and down from year-to-year due to those other factors but the bottom line is greenhouse gasses dominate the long term warming trend.

Thanks, Ron. I'll give your links on the hockey stick a read. At the moment, I don't see a way to reconcile the fact in bold posted by MV from NOAA but I will check it out and appreciate the general enthusiasm for the environment.

Part of the problem with the co2 argument is that it is tied to many other types of emissions / industry and there seems to be a lack of awareness or empathy from the denial side that our activities on the planet contribute to:

habitat destruction
pollution
spread of invasive species
etc

in addition to any argument about climate change. You can see the actions of this administration regarding public lands, the clean water act, importation of trophy animals, etc for evidence if any is needed.

[WMD]

My big concern is that when the climate doomsday predictions don't come true, no one will ever listen to environmentalists again. I do care a lot about the environment and I think it's a shame that the environmental movement has been hijacked by CO2 phobia.

Dammit Ron, you made me laugh till I snorted water out of my nose again! I guess we should have known all along you were only concerned that environmentalists are listened to. I mean, you are a hero because you are a shill for the Koch's after all.