I said "patterns of weather". I did NOT say anything REMOTELY similar to your idea that anthropomorphic climate change makes no sense. It absolutely DOES make sense, as noted by the vast majority of climate scientists the world over.
If that is literally "all (you) can tell (him)" about a 1.5 degree change in climate, then you shouldn't even be talking about this topic. Scientists and even laypeople understand the difference between local weather and global climate. Many have set up lay-language websites just for people like you to learn about the difference. I suggest you visit them. Here are some: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/weather_climate.html https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/difference-between-weather-and-climate
Yeah, Robert, man I'm sorry, but I agree. If you're still confusing the difference between 1.5C of global warming and your local weather then these discussion really aren't going to go anywhere. And please don't take this the wrong way, but if you're not there yet then you simply are not going to be able to understand the IPCC report that got released today.
I frankly highly respect engineers. At least they have studied enough science courses and math courses their standards are higher than most posters.
Look, I once owned a major softball fast pitch team. We took 2nd place nationally. I have lived a life of being underestimated. Do you believe Climate has any weather of any kind in climate?
Oct 11, 2018 addition to Curry investigations Climate uncertainty monster: What’s the worst case? Note. The article contains a lot more. https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/11/climate-uncertainty-monster-whats-the-worst-case/#more-24400
Weather at any time and place is but one datapoint in climate. The climate of one place, say Dayton, OH (it's average yearly heat days, rainfall, and other factors) is but one datapoint when considering climate change - a datapoint limited by being one location on earth. Climate change has to do with how climate (average yearly heat days, rainfall, and other factors) changes over a period of years. More importantly, climate change in one location is not as interesting as the general global patterns of climate change over time.
There are at least a couple problems with this. First of all, the 1.5 degree impact was an analysis requested from outside the IPCC. Curry has no right to blame them for answering such a question. Second, let's remember that "worst case" literally means what WON'T happen. It is that line. And, that was tried in the past. Gore, for example, stated worst case. That has been roundly criticized for MANY years now as having been a MONUMENTAL mistake. One can only guess that a denier such as Curry is promoting an approach that she suspects would set back our understanding and acceptance of climate science by many more years. It's a struggle to provide scientific data on climate change in a form that is understandable by the public (including congressmen who have law degrees, not climatology degrees and who are funded by industry, not by people concerned about disasters traceable to climate). In fact, acceptance of climate science aligns NOT with science but with political party. Cracking that barrier has proven nearly impossible. And, in the end this comment by Curry hits me as being mostly political.
After you stated how much worst case disgusts you, you proceeded to use worst case on Dr. Curry. I am stunned. And you call her a denier as a pejorative. What did she deny? Take me for instance, called a denier, i retort explaining climate over this globe has changed as a matter of routine. For instance the South pole is gaining ice though at the North Pole it diminishes. We can't simply use the north pole to prove anything. My problem to the alarmist crowd seems to be that i simply am not alarmed. I do not want to pay higher taxes to democrats over this. I know Democrats want more and more of our money. 47 percent pay nothing to the Feds for earnings taxes. They can pay things for health and old age, but those do nothing for the rest of us until, like me, they reach a particular age. Why must I live in terror due to your fear of a natural gas?
We see models. We do not see the actual sausage being made so to speak so naturally given models have errors, we want the facts. Hysteria is not working, is it? I get a kick when people try to explain climate to me. So, it is long term. Can we start there. It is long term. By what use of science can you average? I spoke to Dr. Lindzen of my complaint and he agrees. Sure he uses mean. I accept that more than average. But mean where? He uses the tropics. I guess he is the expert.
No, if you think that you need to explain. I stated there are reasons not to use "worst case". [/QUOTE] Are you suggesting that climatologists aren't aware of Earth having two poles? Denying warming because you think it will cost taxes is not an excusable position.
No need to guess. Curry is doubling down on her climate doubt out of a vendetta for being soundly discredited by her peers. Instead of producing science to meet their challenges and criticism, she quit her job and started a blog (because she was unable to produce any such science, because she is wrong, and they are right). She is now a non-scientist. She gets personal satisfaction every time her contrived material is shared, and not because she is seeking truth.
Shameless lie. Our models have been very accurate and have predicted very well the amount of extra energy that would be stored in our climate due to anthropogenic global warming. In fact, they have been more accurate than scientists expected them to be. Being the careful, rational people they are, they didn't do a victory dance over this. They cautioned one another that there is still a small chance they got lucky and then went back to refining these models. Let's compare that to the behavior of deniers, who attempt a victory dance every time they think you find something on a denier blog that debunks the mountains of climate science. See the contrast?
Shameless? Me lying? Well your system is more akin to tossing darts at the dartboard in a bar as you drink and later see you made mistakes so you pull out the missed darts and put them in the bullseye then brag you hit the bullseye. See the way it works?
Are you suggesting that climatologists aren't aware of Earth having two poles? Denying warming because you think it will cost taxes is not an excusable position.[/QUOTE] Again, I do not deny warming. I deny it takes taxes to change climate. That is your ultimate goal, More taxes.
You leave me no other choice. Every time I point out the fact that you know less than nothing about this topic, you object and claim that you do know about this topic. A person ignorant of the basic knowledge of this topic would be expected to make egregious errors. But, since you insist that you are informed on this topic, I have no choice but to assume you are lying.
Again, I do not deny warming. I deny it takes taxes to change climate. That is your ultimate goal, More taxes.[/QUOTE] OK, let's just face it. "More taxes" is not a "goal" of ANYONE in the entire world. So, you need to learn to form argument that isn't based on a "goal" that isn't just laughable.
In the post to which you responded, I said: "No, if you think that you need to explain. I stated there are reasons not to use "worst case"." Now, I want you to state clearly what part of that you used when you formed your unbelievably nonsensical response. You're trolling, Bud. And, that's ALL you've got. Read post #686. Then make your next post an explanation of your attitude.
It is my thread, i bring scientific information here, and you do not like it. Stop reading and replying to my thread.
We're not talking about "Social Justice causes" here. Also, nobody is talking about creating a slush fund to be used arbitrarily. There ARE ideas related to shifting existing taxes of various kinds toward energy in a way that is revenue neutral to the government. Higher taxes is NOT A GOAL. PERIOD.
Governor levied a huge increase to our fuel taxes. Democrats dogma calls for higher taxes that they blame on climate. just keep up. Thank you.
