Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100

It wasn't an edit of your post, it was the statement to which I am directly replying.

 

Yes, it was bait and switch. You prsented rant on immigration. I responded to it. Then you framed my response in the topic of overpopulation, ignoring its context and intent. And, trust me, you are in no position to speak to anyone's education and understanding of this topic.

 

Oh, then we all look forward to your published papers, professor.

Give me a break. No offense, but you are an uneducated slob with no experience in any of these fields; that's a simple fact true of most of us.. For you to say, "they're wrong,because physics" is like a 90 pound weakling claiming he can beat up Mike Tyson because he dressed up like a boxer for Halloween that one time.

 

What are the facts? Spell it out for us. I'm willing to listen so this is your opportunity to educate me. Tell me what laws of physics you think prevent the atmosphere from warming by say 2.0C and the top 1000m of the ocean from warming by say 0.5C? Be convincing. Run through calculations for us.

And more importantly. Explain to me how the entirety of science got it so wrong and some lone internet guy who posts in a political forum figured out something that eluded tens of thousands of experts.

 

Sounds like you're the kinda guy that let's his dog sh** in someone else's yard because then you don't have to clean it up. That's basically your argument here right?

 

Correct. These guys wafffle between, "it's a hoax" and "it's real,but I just don't care" freely and easily; I doubt they even know they have done that, most times. Because this is not about getting to the truth, for them. This is about sticking the fingers in the ears and screaming.

 

One that did not make sense to me. Which is why I asked for clarification
What does it mean to 100% care about something?

 

So back to the OP...the Trump administration is now acknowledging that the IPCC and their conclusions are credible. But, instead of doing something about it they've decided to go even further with the apathy and actually rollback efforts that were already in place.

When I was growing up my parents taught me to leave things no worse off than how you found it. But, today it seems like the modus operandi is to sh** all over it and let someone else cleanup the mess.

Just the other week I had some guy on this very forum tell me that I and anyone else that even suggests that he clean up his own sh** should go to prison for it. We should also go to prison if we even suggest transforming our civilization from one dependent on an unsustainable resource to one that is sustainable and allows for centuries of future economic development without the shackles of a resource that is both limited and harmful to the environment.

 

Bigot
BIG'OT, noun

1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/bigot

 

And the answer was the last part. Don't edit quotes, quote the entire damn thing or don't quote. The only time you edit is if its an extremely long quote or if its broken up. The US could disappear today and its still not enough. India and China are showing no signs of reducing their emissions and India especially are going to see dramatic increases. The Paris Treaty is toothless and only asks that governments have "plans of action" in place by 2030 but doesn't say whether they actually need to implement them. China has already release more CO2 in the last 15 years than the US did since 1970.......what the hell do you think is going to happen in another 13 years?

There is literally nothing that can be done outside of full scale war or massive tariffs on any goods from Asia to try to force them to clean their acts up.

 

I know what bigot means. I was wanting to know why debunking myths makes him a bigot.

Do you believe any of these myths? If so which myths do you believe?

By the way, I'm not unreasonable. I'd happily entertain an alternate theory that explains the warming we observe today. You just have to explain three things...convincingly. One, how is it that CO2 and other polyatomic molecules like H2O, CH4, CFCs, etc. convert infrared photon energy into thermal energy every time we test it in the laboratory and confirmed quantum electrodynamics theory but somehow it doesn't when it's in the atmosphere? Two, if not by the trapping of heat then how is it that the entire geosphere (land, ocean, air) is warming up? Three, and this is the big one...how is it that the lower atmosphere warms while the upper atmosphere cools?

 

It was always too late.

If you never burned an ounce of fossil fuels, the average global temperatures would still increase another 7.8°F to 15.3°F higher than present, because that's what happens during an Inter-Glacial Period.

During the previous Inter-Glacial Period, average global temperatures were 15.3°F warmer than now, and the Greenland ice-sheet nearly melted in its entirety, leaving more or less a large bank of snow snaking along the western side of the mountains on the east coast of Greenland.

The simple fact is that over the last 10,000 years, temperatures have fluctuated wildly, even changing 20°F within a matter of decades, and scientists simply have no understanding why.

 

As I pointed out in the other thread this is not what happens during an interglacial period. The last time it was 15F warmer than today was more than 10 million years ago. No interglacial period in the last 1 million years was as warm as you claim.

The last interglacial period was actually only about 2-3C warmer than today. We are on pace to surpass this temperature around 2070 assuming we continue business-as-usual.

 

It's total bullshit. It’s the same old catastrophe narrative begat by mating overheated climate models with an emission scenario known as RCP8.5 that bizarrely assumes coal displaces gas as the world’s dominant electricity fuel throughout the 21st century.

It's a “consensus” climatology in the draft environmental impact statement. The EIS attempts to estimate the change in greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts resulting from the SAFE rule’s proposed revisions to the Obama administration’s fuel economy standards. To do that, the EIS must compare apples to apples.

In other words, the EIS must use the Obama administration’s climate sensitivity estimates, which derive from the aforementioned overheated models, and the Obama administration’s baseline (business-as-usual) emission scenario, the aforementioned RCP8.5.

The EIS finds that replacing the Obama mileage standards with the SAFE rule’s standards would have vanishingly small impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures, and sea levels.

Specifically, under the SAFE rule, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would reach 789.76 parts per million in the year 2100 instead of 789.11 ppm—an 8/100th of a percent increase. That extra 0.65 part per million of carbon dioxide would increase global average annual temperature by 0.003°C and sea levels by 6 millimeters in 2100.

Three one-thousands of a degree Celsius is 27 times smaller than the margin of error (0.08°C) for measuring changes in global average temperature. So, the climate impact of the Trump proposal would be undetectable under current scientific methods, Silly!

 

Climate alarmists are the doomsday profits of the progressive world. They have their Bible (computer models), which they can interpret or manipulate to spell doom, while their sheepish followers (who don't actually know anything about the science) run around proclaiming the end is near while cursing non-believers.

 

It sounds like you have something figured out which climate scientists were too stupid to do themselves. So I'm interested and I'm all ears. This is your opportunity to educate me.

1. If not by the trapping of heat via the greenhouse gas effect why is the Earth approimately 15C instead -18C which would be the temperature of an ideal black body radiator?

2. If not by the trapping of heat via the greenhouse gas effect why is the entire geosphere warming today?

3. If not by the trapping of heat via the greenhouse gas effect how is the troposphere warming while the stratosphere cools?

4. If not by the trapping of heat via the greenhouse gas effect why was the Earth so warm in the past despite the Sun being dimmer?

5. Why do models that consider all physical processes make really good predictions of the global mean surface temperature whereas models that specifically ignore some of them make terrible predictions?

6. How were Arrhenius [1896], Callendar [1938], Chandler [1979], Hansen [1988], etc. able to make such good predictions? I'm prepared to be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure computer models did not exist in 1896 or even 1938.

7. Where in the IPCC AR5 Report (a good representation of the scientific consensus) can I find these so called doomsday predictions?

 

That link is from John Christy who has a history of misinforming the public on climate issues.

For what it's worth I concede that computer models haven't done so well on predicting the 500mb temperature between 20N and 20S latitude. They do a pretty good job at everything else though. And they've improved over the last 20 years such that the mid-tropospheric tropical hotspot discrepancy isn't such a problem any more. This is the result of two things. First, models have improved in this regard. Second, the mid-tropospheric tropical hotspot is now starting to warm at rates that were originally predicted models. The warming in that layer just took 20 years longer than originally predicted. And this particular prediction from the late 1990's and early 2000's was already known to have low confidence to begin with. Christy cherry-picks the older models which were already known to have this problem as a way of magnifying is critique. Notice that he quietly avoids using the newer models which have largely resolved this discrepancy.

But, like many things in science it's a zero-sum error in which the Arctic warming was severely underestimated by models. In the late 1990's and early 2000's the best estimates for the first ice free summer up there were between 2070-2100. The IPPC had to lower this to 2050 in 2013. And the chatter in the scientific community today is that the IPCC is going to have to drop this again when AR6 is published.

I wonder...why didn't John Christy tell congress about the all of the things computer models got right?

Also, did you know John Christy leads the UAH satellite dataset. Of the dozens of datasets that computer a global mean surface temperature his UAH dataset uses a strategy which requires the most manipulation of raw data. It's also the dataset with the lowest estimate of the warming. He once bragged in the late 90's that his UAH dataset was the most accurate in the existence with an error of no more than 0.01C/decade of error. It wasn't but a few months later that they had to issue revision D to account for orbital decay and which lead to an increase in the warming rate of 0.10C/decade. Yep, he was so wrong with revisions A-C that they were off by 10x.

Also, did you know that when John Christy compares model predictions to observations he typically 1) uses his low-biased UAH dataset and 2) removes most of the warming from El Nino without removing the same magnitude of cooling from La Nino? I'm just curious what you think about this?

 

I read a few years ago that if we stopped co2 emissions that day, the warming would continue on past the 22nd century. So, if it is too late, it is too late. Right?

If technology continues to advance, perhaps we will be off of fossil fuels for energy in the next 50 years and then that will be the only way we can ever actually address it in a meaningful manner. Carbon taxes would do very little if anything except to redistribute income from the have nots to the haves at the top.

Gotta be rational and reasonable when it comes to co2 and the warming of the climate. I would not place too much faith in what the scientists are predicting though. Have they not missed it, ever since they started predicting, in the shorter term?

 

It's probably not that long. The equilibrium response to a pulse of CO2 is between 30 and 50 years.

I agree. The transition to a non-fossil fuel based economy is going to keep pushing forward and it'll probably have more to do with the cost than with climate.

I don't know. Typically rich people use more carbon so their tax should be greater. The problem with any consumption tax (like sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.) is that the tax itself represents a larger percentage of income so it would be felt more significantly by lower income people. It wouldn't have to be a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich though. The tax could be setup such that lower income people get a rebate.

Once again I completely agree. You can't just pull the rug on carbon emissions. That would likely be worse than adapting to the warming. Fossil fuels are embedded so deep in our civilization right now that any abrupt change would result in an epic global depression possibly even bordering on the collapse of civilization itself. What changes are made have to be rational and reasonable.

Here I respectfully disagree. Our predictions aren't perfect, but there is a reasonable amount of confidence in the 1.5 to 4.5C of warming per doubling of CO2. Oddly though the confidence on the lower bound is pretty high whereas on the upper bound it's lower. That means scientists think underestimating the warming is more likely than overestimating it.

Yes.

Short term prediction aren't that good. This is largely the result of natural variations being dominated by chaotic processes. There is some skill in predicting the warming pattern from year to year, but it's really not that great right now.

Long term predictions are much better. This is largely the result of the dominant radiative forcing mechanisms being highly predictable and persistent.

In general, and this applies to all disciplines of science, small scale (both spatially and temporally) processes are dominated by chaotic behaviors. There is a huge random-like component that dominates the changes. But, this random-like component creates just as much negative pressure on the change as it does positive pressure. That's why smaller scale processes tend to be cyclic. El Nino happens for a year or two and then La Nina happens for a year or two. It's cold on side of the planet, but warm on the other. It's dryer over here and wetter over there. Scientists informally refer to this as the rubberband theory.

But for large scale processes the system tends to hug what are called strange attractors. The system tends to chaotically oscillate around the attractor in random manner on small scales, but always follows a mean reversion course that pulls it back into toward the attractor. That anthroprogenic component on the climate is putting pressure on the attractor to move. Small scale process still jiggle this way and that but still follow the attractor when viewed on large scales.

This is why Arrhenius [1896], Callendar [1938], Chandler [1979], Hansen [1988], etc. have been so successful in predicting the warming even up to 100+ years in advance. They can't nail the exact amount of warming down to the 1/10th of degree on a yearly basis, but they can get the overall trend as viewed over long periods of time pretty close. I will say that Hansen's 1988 prediction of the 2017 year-end temperature being off by only 0.05C had a lot of dumb luck associated with it.

 

If the Trump administration fuel economy standards don’t “do anything” about climate change, neither do the Obama standards, as can be seen from this chart from the SAFE rule:



But, the SAFE rule would save $250 billion in auto industry compliance costs, $77.1 billion in avoided traffic fatalities, and $120.4 billion in avoided serious injuries. If the SAFE rule simply helps middle-income households afford to buy new motor vehicles—the proposal makes good sense, because sticking with the Obama standards would have no discernible climate benefits, not that you guys give an actual fart about anyway.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the CAFE rule born out of concern upon being dependent on oil which can be difficult to procure in times of crisis? In other words, the CAFE standards were never about preventing global warming. The standard doesn't actually target carbon emissions. Did Obama bill the CAFE standards as mitigating climate change?

 

I will be dead in 2100. So I don't care. Second, global warming is currently capable by science to stop ti. Just a membrane between us and the sun, and it goes away if it is really real. At the last of the most recent Ice age were probably hollering "global warming" too.

 

Please explain the last 5 Ices ages and their causes. No theories, only facts.

 

They are caused by the net effect of many physical processes. The big 4 are greenhouse gases, solar radiation, aerosols, and albedo. There are many secondary indirect mechanisms that influence how the big 4 are modulated and how effective they are at changing the climate system. These include biomass, ocean currents, continental drift, and many more. Then there are cataclysm such as asteroids and supervolcanoes. But, just by using the big 4 scientists can explain most climate change both past and present including how ice ages began and ended plus the faint young Sun problem. We certainly don't have all of the answers and we never will, but we have a pretty good idea of the fundamentals that caused climate change in the past.

And by the way, don't think I missed your implication that it is a requirement that all past climate changes must be explained with perfection to be able to explain present climate change with useful skill. That's not a real requirement. It would be like requiring a doctor to understand every aspect of a persons health plus their parents and grandparents health before administering a diagnosis and treatment regiment for an ailment today. Sure, it's useful to have a good background history on a person and her family, but it's definitely not a requirement especially given the technology we have today.

No theories means no science. Science is built upon the principal of forming hypothesis and attempting to falsify them. Facts either support or refute hypothesis. And hypothesis come together to form theories. That's how science works. So if you don't like theories you can throw your hands up in the air and say "I don't know", but that does nothing to refute the explanatory and predictive nature of the theories hard working scientists have formed. Personally, I'm glad our most revered scientists said "Hmm...that's interesting" instead of "Meh".

Now again I ask. Present to me your alternative theory which provides explanations for the 7 questions above and which can predict the future climate path with the same amount of skill as current theory without violating any laws of physics. If you can't present one then I'm left with no other choice but to accept the best one available to me today. That theory is the current consensus born out the abundance of evidence. It might not be perfect, but it's all I have.

 

I know the type. You'll let your dog sh** in my yard because then you don't have to clean up the mess and because you "don't care".

No it's not. At least not with the technology and economic resources at our disposal. All we can do right now is mitigate the warming.

That's not advisable. There are proposals for stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections, but this adds yet another variable to the mix. The best solution is to remove variables or least suppress the magnitude of the variables that we've already introduced. This means the safest and most reliable method of mitigating the warming is via a reduction in greenhouse gases.

And no doubt the warming from the last glacial to interglacial was a big reason why human civilizations began sprouting up. The problem with the warming today is mostly the rate at which it is happening. These leaves little time for humans and other lifeforms (that may be essential to humans) to adapt to the changes. At our current pace by 2070-2100 the Earth will be warmer than at any time in the last 1 million years. Whether you want it or not it's an experiment that humans have collectively agreed to run and let run. So you need to ask yourself is this experiment worth running and are humans prepared for the consequences if it goes wrong which most scientists agree that it will go wrong.