There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 383]

I answered on GND thread.

 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I think you absolutely see it as USA! USA! USA!. I was making no argument for or against fracking. I simply see it as revealing that you extoll the effects like a High School cheer. In any case, as I asked previously, economics and climate change aside, do you see any downsides to fracking?

Joe:  What has fracking ever done for us?

Hutch: Abundant supply of cheap reliable clean energy.

Joe: Yeah, yeah that's true

Hutch: And a reduced carbon footprint

Joe: All right, I'll grant you that, cheap reliable clean energy and a reduced carbon footprint

Hutch: And the billions in tax revenue

Joe:  Well obviously the tax revenue, that goes without saying 

Hutch: Stabilized global energy markets, provided thousands of jobs, helped grow the economy, reduced the power of bad actors such as Saudi Arabia and Russia....

Joe: All right, all right.....but apart from abundant cheap reliable clean energy, reduced carbon footprint, billions in tax revenue, stable global energy markets, thousands of jobs, helping grow the economy and reducing the power of bad actors...…...WHAT HAS FRACKING EVER DONE FOR US?

Apologies to Monty Python 

Edited February 15, 2020 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,299]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Joe:  What has fracking ever done for us?

Hutch: Abundant supply of cheap reliable clean energy.

Joe: Yeah, yeah that's true

Hutch: And a reduced carbon footprint

Joe: All right, I'll grant you that, cheap reliable clean energy and a reduced carbon footprint

Hutch: And the billions in tax revenue

Joe:  Well obviously the tax revenue, that goes without saying 

Hutch: Stabilized global energy markets, provided thousands of jobs, helped grow the economy, reduced the power of bad actors such as Saudi Arabia and Russia....

Joe: All right, all right.....but apart from abundant cheap reliable clean energy, reduced carbon footprint, billions in tax revenue, stable global energy markets, thousands of jobs, helping grow the economy and reducing the power of bad actors...…...WHAT HAS FRACKING EVER DONE FOR US?

Apologies to Monty Python 

That's cute but not what I asked. Seriously, you have a real talent for avoidance. I simply was curious if you had the ability to see any downsides; you know, the other half of weighing the evidence. 

FYI, I'm not opposed to fracking. I am strongly opposed to the massive transfer of wealth to the middle east and believe anything that weakens the one trick pony Russian economy is a good thing. 

[brenthutch 383]

38 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's cute but not what I asked. Seriously, you have a real talent for avoidance. I simply was curious if you had the ability to see any downsides; you know, the other half of weighing the evidence. 

Of course there are some negatives, as in any large scale extractive enterprise, however the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

[BIGUN 1,053]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Most of what you linked to is outdated and the trends observed in many cases have reversed themselves.  For example, the record warmth in the United States.

Brent, please read the following in its entirety. It's newer and you know not unlike you; I can be stubborn as hell, but at some point we have to look past the party line and rely on science - physical science; not social science. . 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099850/ 

Edited February 16, 2020 by BIGUN

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

Brent, please read the following in its entirety. It's newer and you know not unlike you; I can be stubborn as hell, but at some point we have to look past the party line and rely on science. 

Good luck getting this man to ever consider, let alone admit, that he is wrong!

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Of course there are some negatives, as in any large scale extractive enterprise, however the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

Thanks. You saved me the trouble of Googling it.

[BIGUN 1,053]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

consider, let alone admit, that he is wrong!

It's not about being wrong. It's about being fed the wrong information for too long. I too; sang the party line, but I chose to continue my education outside of what was being pumped at me. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

Just now, BIGUN said:

It's not about being wrong. It's about being fed the wrong information for too long. I too; sang the party line, but I chose to continue my education outside of what was being pumped at me. 

Congratulations, I sincerely applaud you on that. Brent's attachments to his position are a little mysterious to me. His main point seems to be "screw it, doing something about it would cost too much". Everything else seems to flow from that.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

It's not about being wrong. It's about being fed the wrong information for too long. I too; sang the party line, but I chose to continue my education outside of what was being pumped at me. 

For Brent it is about being wrong. And, even though you irritate the fuck out of me sometimes, you are a without a doubt a high caliber and very honest guy. So it's really no surprise that you do what you do.

[billvon 2,400]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Congratulations, I sincerely applaud you on that. Brent's attachments to his position are a little mysterious to me. His main point seems to be "screw it, doing something about it would cost too much". Everything else seems to flow from that.

Or "hey, if my positions piss people off, I'm going to express them as often as possible!"  Some people get off on that.

[brenthutch 383]

13 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Brent, please read the following in its entirety. It's newer and you know not unlike you; I can be stubborn as hell, but at some point we have to look past the party line and rely on science - physical science; not social science. . 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099850/ 

From your article, (and I did read the whole thing)

"Such analyses are exceedingly tricky, and not all experts in the field agree"  "One study published in Harvey's aftermath suggests climate change likely boosted the hurricane's rainfall, the models suggest "  “Global warming is nebulous,” says climate scientist Peter Stott" "climate researchers clash over methodology"  "it’s difficult for researchers to evaluate the quality of computer models because the counterfactual scenarios, by definition, didn’t actually happen"  "often referred to as a “storyline” approach. And where the conventional approach emphasizes natural variability, the conditional approach focuses on the role of climate change, says Trenberth. The different methodologies produce disparate reports"  "Rahmstorf, who suspects that atmospheric dynamics are not well-represented in current climate models used for attribution studies"

It doesn't sound like the science is settled.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

42 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

From your article, (and I did read the whole thing)

"Such analyses are exceedingly tricky, and not all experts in the field agree"  "One study published in Harvey's aftermath suggests climate change likely boosted the hurricane's rainfall, the models suggest "  “Global warming is nebulous,” says climate scientist Peter Stott" "climate researchers clash over methodology"  "it’s difficult for researchers to evaluate the quality of computer models because the counterfactual scenarios, by definition, didn’t actually happen"  "often referred to as a “storyline” approach. And where the conventional approach emphasizes natural variability, the conditional approach focuses on the role of climate change, says Trenberth. The different methodologies produce disparate reports"  "Rahmstorf, who suspects that atmospheric dynamics are not well-represented in current climate models used for attribution studies"

It doesn't sound like the science is settled.

 

 

It doesn't sound like you even want to consider that it is a possibility.

You are a post driven firmly into the ground.  The only ways to get those to move is, well, you know the answer to that.

[brenthutch 383]

23 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

It doesn't sound like you even want to consider that it is a possibility.

You are a post driven firmly into the ground.  The only ways to get those to move is, well, you know the answer to that.

No I am a rational skeptic.  I don’t “deny” climate change. The climate has been changing since time began.  I question the role of CO2 as the control knob on the global thermostat.

[BIGUN 1,053]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

From your article, (and I did read the whole thing)

"Such analyses are exceedingly tricky, and not all experts in the field agree"  "One study published in Harvey's aftermath suggests climate change likely boosted the hurricane's rainfall, the models suggest "  “Global warming is nebulous,” says climate scientist Peter Stott" "climate researchers clash over methodology"  "it’s difficult for researchers to evaluate the quality of computer models because the counterfactual scenarios, by definition, didn’t actually happen"  "often referred to as a “storyline” approach. And where the conventional approach emphasizes natural variability, the conditional approach focuses on the role of climate change, says Trenberth. The different methodologies produce disparate reports"  "Rahmstorf, who suspects that atmospheric dynamics are not well-represented in current climate models used for attribution studies"

You cherry-picked the the prologue as to why the computer models needed changing, but failed to address the summation:

"Studies such as one show the immediacy of risk, says climate scientist Jesse Bell at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, in Omaha, NE. “A lot of times when we talk about climate change we talk about how things are changing the future,” he says. But Mitchell’s study emphasizes the here and now. “This isn’t something that’s going to just have an impact in 25 or 50 years. Climate change is now.”

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You cherry-picked the the prologue as to why the computer models needed changing, but failed to address the summation:

"Studies such as one show the immediacy of risk, says climate scientist Jesse Bell at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, in Omaha, NE. “A lot of times when we talk about climate change we talk about how things are changing the future,” he says. But Mitchell’s study emphasizes the here and now. “This isn’t something that’s going to just have an impact in 25 or 50 years. Climate change is now.”

When is shows up in the statistics and not just the models, I will take another look.  
(BTW, did you notice that one of the models had to assume a 5 degree C increase in temperature to detect attribution?)

[BIGUN 1,053]

29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I question the role of CO2 as the control knob on the global thermostat.

And to that exact point; I submit the following:

Quote

 

Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. The pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm, which is representative of the interglacial maximum level of atmospheric CO2. During ice age extremes, the level of atmospheric CO2 drops to near 180 ppm, for which the global temperature is about 5 °C colder. The rapid recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human industrial activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. This has pushed atmospheric CO2 toward the 400 ppm level, far beyond the interglacial maximum. The climate system is trying to respond to the new setting of the global temperature thermostat, and this response has been the rise in global surface temperature by about 0.2 °C per decade for the past three decades.

It has been suggested that we are well past the 300 to 350 ppm target level for atmospheric CO2 beyond which dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system would be expected to exceed the 25% risk tolerance for impending degradation of land and ocean ecosystems, sea level rise, and inevitable disruption of the socio-economic and food-producing infrastructure (Hansen et al. 2008). This prospect of a rising risk of triggering unacceptable environmental consequences makes reductionton and control of atmospheric CO2 a serious and pressing issue for humanity, worthy of real time attention.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

 

And, I realize that this may be from ten years ago - but it's like compound interest. It gets uglier the longer it lasts.  

[aonsquared 9]

53 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

When is shows up in the statistics and not just the models, I will take another look.  
(BTW, did you notice that one of the models had to assume a 5 degree C increase in temperature to detect attribution?)

Unfortunately, as we have demonstrated earlier in this thread, you're unable to tell the difference between statistics and models.

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

And to that exact point; I submit the following:

And, I realize that this may be from ten years ago - but it's like compound interest. It gets uglier the longer it lasts.  

James Hansen

https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/scientist-who-predicted-ny-city-would-be-underwater-says-hes-not-an-alarmist/

 

[brenthutch 383]

On 2/16/2020 at 10:27 AM, BIGUN said:

And to that exact point; I submit the following:

And, I realize that this may be from ten years ago - but it's like compound interest. It gets uglier the longer it lasts.  

Actually it is more like diminishing returns

The warming effect of CO2 drops of logarithmically.  As you can see the higher CO2 levels get the less warming they contribute 

[billvon 2,400]

On 2/16/2020 at 8:19 AM, aonsquared said:

Unfortunately, as we have demonstrated earlier in this thread, you're unable to tell the difference between statistics and models.

Oh, he can.  But since it gets a rise out of you, he pretends he can't.

[DJL 232]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Actually it is more like diminishing returns

The warming effect of CO2 drops of logarithmically.  As you can see the higher CO2 levels get the less warming they contribute 

So you don't know how to determine average temperature differences but now you're an expert on logarithmic graphs? 

[turtlespeed 212]

42 minutes ago, DJL said:

So you don't know how to determine average temperature differences but now you're an expert on logarithmic graphs? 

zinggggggg!!

[brenthutch 383]

45 minutes ago, DJL said:

So you don't know how to determine average temperature differences but now you're an expert on logarithmic graphs? 

Nope, that is why I posted a graph from someone who does

[billvon 2,400]

9 hours ago, DJL said:

So you don't know how to determine average temperature differences but now you're an expert on logarithmic graphs? 

Especially funny given that that graph shows the exact opposite of what he claims.