Who should I believe, AGW/ACC advocates, or deniers?

You have asked me this question already. The difference this time is that you want me to imagine that I don't have the experience in life that I have and make the decision as if I were a legislator? If you desire that I play politician then I suppose it will be necessary that I do not provide you with a direct answer to your question.

I'll tell you what I'd do first is I would arrange to have lunch or at least have a phone call with my local NBC, ABC and CBS lead meteorologists, one-on-one and off the record, and I would ask them their opinion of the validity of science that claims to be able to forecast the average temperature of the entire Earth 80 years into the future.

This next part will be too technical for you again I suspect, but I would also have someone on my staff research exactly how dependent the Ercot system is on wind power, and I would want to know if during periods of productive wind whether or not thermal operators are required to remove their power from the market, and if so then I'd like to know what provisions are made to compensate them for maintaining the equipment and operations necessary to provide power when it's nighttime and the wind stops blowing.

Apologies, but even if I were a legislator, I would still make it a point to do the right thing for my constituents, my city, my state, and my nation. And additional apologies for not being able to comply with your scenario of not knowing what I know. Drake and Justin Bieber are very popular, but that doesn't mean I'd have them playing on my headphones.

 

Uh, no, I never mentioned "media representatives" were flip flopping - that list was paraphrased from Fauci, Birx, CDC at al pronouncements. And I'm well aware of the nature of the virus and that we've been traveling uncharted territory for the last 18 months. How about for a change you address what I've said rather than continually creating new straw men (diplomatic way of saying "lying your ass off) about may posts? Discuss the issue now what fits your ultra-partisan agenda.

 

Thanks for the info, but you've missed the entire point of the post.

 

I refer you once again to my previous post,

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ates-or-deniers.590629/page-4#post-1072835292

 

They ignore that inconvenience all the time, heck even Gregory sharply downsized from his earlier above 6C to below 2C 6 years later.

LOL

 

Climate sensitivity is the Achilles heel of climate alarmist orthodoxy.

 

Somewhat interesting that you mention this particular system in demonstrating what the results of a real model produce. As it happens I was a Pershing Missile Crewmember from 7Nov83 to 7Nov87. It's not a cruise missile, but I suspect you know this and your fingers got ahead of you. It is classified as an intermediate range ballistic missile as was the SS20 - hence the name of the treaty that banned them, the Intermediate range Nuclear Forces or INF treaty. This was the final beginning of the end of the USSR.

Somewhat back on-topic, as much as I disdain the lack of knowledge these environmentalists display, I'll put up with their carbon taxes and less than fully reliable electrical grids and all of the other things that I dislike about them rather than hope to ever again support the party of sedition with the treasonous leader that abrogated the INF treaty in charge and his sycophants attempting to emulate him at every opportunity.

 

Deleted.

 

Since the effects of the change in total solar irradiance only amount to +0.05 watts per square meter of radiative forcing from 1750 to 2011
per the IPCC AR5 report, that number is very small compared to the total anthropogenic component of radiative forcing, 2.3 watts per
square meter. This is the comparison that you should be making. You are comparing something that is variable and increasing to something
that is very nearly a constant averaged over the 1750-2011 time frame. It doesn't matter that 1365/4 X0.7 = 239 is much greater than 2.3 if the first number, 239, only changes by +0.05 +/- 0.05.

 

You have to look at it from the standpoint of a lay legislator, they are making laws and policies.

Why I ask is that I'm wondering what is, precisely, the right approach sans technical proficiency.

If you are unable to do that, like you said, you can't disassociate from your knowledge, then you are the wrong person to put that question to.

See, I am that guy, and relying on one person's opinion is not prudent, from where I sit. I don't know who is right, nor am I proficient enough to understand what you are saying, which is why I posited the scenario I did.

 

Here's what you posted:

I agree. Over the past year, however, science has told uslist far from complete)
1. virus not transmissible to humans
2. Oops, it IS transmissible to humans
3. it's no worse than a seasonal flu
4. It's way worse than a seasonal flu
5. If we just shutdown for two weeks we'll bend the curve and all well be well
6. We don't need masks
7.we DO need masks, maybe more than one
8. Bats caused the virus
10. Wrong again on that "bats" thing
11. All's when forget the masks
12. Not so fast on the "no masks" thing
All allegedly derived from science.


I said it was "a fair inference drawn from your 'list' " You don't have to mention 'media representatives', they are inclusive in your verbiage. So quit weaseling out of what you implied.

All allegedly derived from science.

That is a derogatory post, in every way, so don't give me any crap about it. You need to own up to what you wrote.

Your point was the IMPLIED flip flopping and IMPLYING that it was incompetent, which was an unjust implication given the shifting data on the virus.

 

I don't accept Scafetta's graph shown above as an accurate portrayal of the time evolution of climate sensitivity. I am relying on the IPCC AR5 report and Knutt
2017. I am using the most probable and cited value for the climate sensitivity mean. I also refer you to The Carbon Brief, "How scientists estimate climate sensitivity.
Sherwood's 2020 paper uses multiple line of evidence to show that the climate sensitivity is between 2.3 and 4.7 degrees C (5%-95%) confidence range. His paper
discusses the physical mechanisms responsible for this sensitivity range and the water vapor plus lapse rate feedback accounts for 1.15 watts/square meter/degree
Centigrade temperature change. Your above paper from the "No Tricks Zone" will not be taken seriously by climate scientists and the idea that climate
sensitivity estimates are trending towards zero is ridiculous. A climate sensitivity below 2 degrees C is not consistent with what is known about feedbacks.

Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity (carbonbrief.org)

Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity | Nature Geoscience Sept. 2017 excerpts below are from the Nature Geoscience article, Knutti

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity characterizes the Earth’s long-term global temperature response to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. It has reached almost iconic status as the single number that describes how severe climate change will be. The consensus on the ‘likely’ range for climate sensitivity of 1.5 °C to 4.5°C today is the same as given by Jule Charney in 1979, but now it is based on quantitative evidence from across the climate system and throughout climate history"

"Our overall assess-ment of ECS and TCR is broadly consistent with the IPCC’s7, but concerns arise about estimates of ECS from the historical period that assume constant feedbacks, raising serious questions to what extent ECS values less than 2°C are consistent with current physical understanding of climate feedbacks. A value of around 3°C is most likely given the combined evidence and the recognition that feedbacks change over time."

 

I apologize for occupying so much space in your mind with (1367-2.3)/1367 = 99.831748354%.

 

You keep going back to your lack of technical proficiency. Do you not even grasp how necessary it is to the alarmists' position that they actually have-to-have the ability to forecast the Earth's average temperature 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years in advance? I offered you a solid piece of advice. If you represented a district in the US House then you could most certainly gain 30 minutes to an hour of the leading meteorologist's time at the Big Three Networks and you could even include Fox if you like. You could ask them whether or not that my claim that multi-decade forecasts must be valid to support their assertions that we must act now or "everything" is at risk. And then you could follow up with whether or not they think that multi-decade forecasts are currently even possible.

 

@Patricio Da Silva

However, what if you were a D, wouldn't you more or less have to support AGW measures? And if you were R wouldn't you just be in opposition? So, wouldn't you have to some be elected as an independent for the question to even exist which legislation you would support? You don't think many of these people actually put that much effort into climate stuff do you?

 

AGW is a UN wealth redistribution scam. If you fall for it, that's on you.

Pay them your carbon credits. I got nothing for them.

I'm for the betterment of America, period.

 

I really don't care whether you accept Scafetta's graph. The data are the data. Climate alarmists need a high climate sensitivity to support their AGW claims. Low sensitivity fundamentally undermines their entire theory of climate change.
Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct
". . . Instead, one can and should simulate the 20th century, and beyond, and see that when taking the sun into account, it explains about 1/2 to 2/3s of the 20th century warming, and that the best climate sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling (compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C of the IPCC). Two points to note here. First, although the best estimate of the solar radiative forcing is a bit less than the combined anthropogenic forcing, because it is spread more evenly over the 20th century, its contribution is larger than the anthropogenic contribution the bulk of which took place more recently. That's why the best fit gives that the solar contribution is 1/2 to 2/3s of the warming. Second, the reason that the best fit requires a smaller climate sensitivity is because the total net radiative forcing is about twice larger. This implies that a smaller sensitivity is required to fit the same observed temperature increase. . . . "

 

So pray do tell what are men specifically supposed to do about that?

 

There is no need to play amateur scientist or Donny Detective. Just stick with mainstream journals as a primary reference -the Journals Science or Nature. Also, sources like Scientific American are generally reliable, Otherwise, If an internet site isn't and .edu or .gov or a respected organization like the IPCC, then ignore it.


Go to NASA, Wood's Hole Institute, NOAA. or any of a dozen highly respected institutions. The best information we have can be found there.

 

Actually, nothing. The data indicate we will achieve the Paris temperature target for 2100 by doing nothing at all.

 

So the US should not have any economic penalties then, right?

 

Neither the US nor anyone else.

 

It's well beyond that. It is a fear based attempt to gain almost total legislative control of all kinds of stuff. Fireplace permits limiting you to one fire a month. Heavy taxes on cement with production limits. Texas Ercot suppliers already had to seek special waivers from the EPA to operate beyond their permits during the Winter Storm for the units that were able to continue to run as they had exceeded their turn at bat so to speak and there were other units that should have but were unable to take over the loads, at least that's my best guess how that happened.

 

The IPCC has become his religion, he is now on record that he will ignore over 100 published papers on CO2 sensitivity values.

He doesn't even realize that it is already failing......

I consider that irrational and closeminded.

 

@Patricio Da Silva

correction...