New report on climate change released today

[Loren Pechtel]

I wonder why all doomsday predictions are in the future and not in the present day where alarmists can point to and say: there's the proof right before your eyes. The same decades old scenarios of a soon happening doomsday keeps on being put forward. Yet the sea hasn't risen 4-5 meters, the low laying islands are in fact growing not being submerged by the rising seas as predicted even 2 decades ago. Forecasters can't even tell you if a tornado will make landfall within days, yet we are to believe their forecasts in centuries to come.
Besides, humanity is in danger of another ice age not a rise of around 1.5C in temperature in the year 2100 and beyond. Cold kills millions, not heat. The human body adapts from below 0C in Winter to 40-50C in Summer. So WTF is the drama about if not for the biggest scam since religion was invented!

Where do you get all these pieces of garbage?

Who makes predictions about the present day?!?! That makes no sense!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, of course, we should be building water-cooled nuclear power plants right now. Not only are they the safest way of generating power, but they also do so with only carbon emissions associated with fuel mining and enrichment, a trivial amount considering the carbon-free power production gained. But the uranium is a scare element and the portion of it that is fissile and able to be burned in a reactor is only 0.2 to 0.3% of the uranium. Meaning that the fissile Ur235 is as rare as platinum. If this wasn't bad enough the high-pressure water-cooled reactors are only capable of burning a portion of the Ur235 in their fuel rods because of the design of the fuel rods that contain the waste products of the process. The xenon gas produced will rupture the fuel rod long before the Ur235 is all consumed.

Breeder reactor + reprocessing. The fuel supply just went up about 1000x.

What I said is that we need research funds to other reactor designs to see a way forward, including handling the waste produced by the current reactors. Well, I didn't phrase it that way but it is what I meant. I was responding to anglo who is so confused he doesn't seem to grasp that the sun can't heat anything at night. I didn't want to confuse him any further, probably an impossibility.

The waste problem can be easily solved by sending some environmentalists to the wall. It's a purely political problem, their fears are killing large numbers of people. (And to a fair degree it's not even fears--they're trying to wreck our economy to force society to their small-is-beautiful approach. They fail to understand the gigadeaths associated with that.)

At the same time, I advocate for both wind and solar power. When they are generating they unload the coal plants, reducing the carbon emissions. We can also fire natural gas either as an auxiliary or replacing coal in existing plants, reducing the amount of carbon emissions, albeit at a reduction in the output of the plant.

Except they do little to unload the coal plants because the plants have a slow throttle. Renewables only unload the natural gas plants.

 

[angelo]

I wonder why all doomsday predictions are in the future and not in the present day where alarmists can point to and say: there's the proof right before your eyes. The same decades old scenarios of a soon happening doomsday keeps on being put forward. Yet the sea hasn't risen 4-5 meters, the low laying islands are in fact growing not being submerged by the rising seas as predicted even 2 decades ago. Forecasters can't even tell you if a tornado will make landfall within days, yet we are to believe their forecasts in centuries to come.
Besides, humanity is in danger of another ice age not a rise of around 1.5C in temperature in the year 2100 and beyond. Cold kills millions, not heat. The human body adapts from below 0C in Winter to 40-50C in Summer. So WTF is the drama about if not for the biggest scam since religion was invented!

Where do you get all these pieces of garbage?

Who makes predictions about the present day?!?! That makes no sense!

Not one dire prediction about GW/CC/CD made in the past few decades can be pointed to as proof in the present time, or is it likely to in the near future as proof positive of humanity causing more than adding around 0.03% cause to GW/CC/CD.

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

 

[ZiprHead]

I wonder why all doomsday predictions are in the future and not in the present day where alarmists can point to and say: there's the proof right before your eyes. The same decades old scenarios of a soon happening doomsday keeps on being put forward. Yet the sea hasn't risen 4-5 meters, the low laying islands are in fact growing not being submerged by the rising seas as predicted even 2 decades ago. Forecasters can't even tell you if a tornado will make landfall within days, yet we are to believe their forecasts in centuries to come.
Besides, humanity is in danger of another ice age not a rise of around 1.5C in temperature in the year 2100 and beyond. Cold kills millions, not heat. The human body adapts from below 0C in Winter to 40-50C in Summer. So WTF is the drama about if not for the biggest scam since religion was invented!

Where do you get all these pieces of garbage?

Who makes predictions about the present day?!?! That makes no sense!

Not one dire prediction about GW/CC/CD made in the past few decades can be pointed to as proof in the present time, or is it likely to in the near future as proof positive of humanity causing more than adding around 0.03% cause to GW/CC/CD.

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

Really? Here is one prediction from 2007 that tropical storms and hurricanes will become more intense due to GW. That prediction has certainly come to pass.

https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not one dire prediction about GW/CC/CD made in the past few decades can be pointed to as proof in the present time, or is it likely to in the near future as proof positive of humanity causing more than adding around 0.03% cause to GW/CC/CD.

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

Really? Here is one prediction from 2007 that tropical storms and hurricanes will become more intense due to GW. That prediction has certainly come to pass.

https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

But intensity of hurricanes appear to be cyclical. This isn't the first clump of Cat 5s. The issue meteorologists I believe have made is the steering currents, and we have had several storms just slow down or stop, and caused much more damage through flooding. Sadly for the Bahamas, we saw this with a full fledged cat 5. angelo's point is ridiculous and just another stop on the wheel of right-wing climate change speak.

1) there is no increase in CO2
2) there is an increase in CO2 but it could be natural
3) there is an increase in CO2 and we are the cause, but it isn't linked to warming temps.
4) did we mention temps aren't really increasing? Airports are bigger now.
5) CO2 levels are up, we are the cause, it is causing warming (but just a little) and all the predictions are wrong, therefore it doesn't matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wonder why all doomsday predictions are in the future and not in the present day where alarmists can point to and say: there's the proof right before your eyes. The same decades old scenarios of a soon happening doomsday keeps on being put forward. Yet the sea hasn't risen 4-5 meters, the low laying islands are in fact growing not being submerged by the rising seas as predicted even 2 decades ago. Forecasters can't even tell you if a tornado will make landfall within days, yet we are to believe their forecasts in centuries to come.
Besides, humanity is in danger of another ice age not a rise of around 1.5C in temperature in the year 2100 and beyond. Cold kills millions, not heat. The human body adapts from below 0C in Winter to 40-50C in Summer. So WTF is the drama about if not for the biggest scam since religion was invented!

Where do you get all these pieces of garbage?

Who makes predictions about the present day?!?! That makes no sense!

Not one dire prediction about GW/CC/CD made in the past few decades can be pointed to as proof in the present time, or is it likely to in the near future as proof positive of humanity causing more than adding around 0.03% cause to GW/CC/CD.

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

That isn't even talking about global warming. It's just a collection of wild predictions. AEI knows economics, not science.

 

[angelo]

Not one dire prediction about GW/CC/CD made in the past few decades can be pointed to as proof in the present time, or is it likely to in the near future as proof positive of humanity causing more than adding around 0.03% cause to GW/CC/CD.

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

Really? Here is one prediction from 2007 that tropical storms and hurricanes will become more intense due to GW. That prediction has certainly come to pass.

https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

Pure unadulterated bullshit! There is FA evidence for even a half % of increase or intensity of any storm or tornado world wide. In fact there's been less as if nature is also calling it for what it is=Bullshit!

 

[ZiprHead]

Not one dire prediction about GW/CC/CD made in the past few decades can be pointed to as proof in the present time, or is it likely to in the near future as proof positive of humanity causing more than adding around 0.03% cause to GW/CC/CD.

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

Really? Here is one prediction from 2007 that tropical storms and hurricanes will become more intense due to GW. That prediction has certainly come to pass.

https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

Pure unadulterated bullshit! There is FA evidence for even a half % of increase or intensity of any storm or tornado world wide. In fact there's been less as if nature is also calling it for what it is=Bullshit!

Prove it.

 

[George S]

So I found this article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

This one is in my wheelhouse. [Twirling mustache] M'Speciality.

In the briefest of nutshells the methodology of climate computer modeling sucks eggs. Goose eggs. Through a garden hose. Lots of suck.
To project the future N years they run the model N times. A single run of any model has an error bar. A second run, using the error-bar-ridden input, introduces its own error bar as a multiple thus propagating the error. In the above paper he shows that the error bars as they themselves claim far exceed the claimed CO2 forcing. The CO2 forcing is like a fart in the wind.

The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

This response says: No Way
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09...bility-of-global-air-temperature-predictions/

 

[bilby]

So I found this article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

This one is in my wheelhouse. [Twirling mustache] M'Speciality.

In the briefest of nutshells the methodology of climate computer modeling sucks eggs. Goose eggs. Through a garden hose. Lots of suck.
To project the future N years they run the model N times. A single run of any model has an error bar. A second run, using the error-bar-ridden input, introduces its own error bar as a multiple thus propagating the error. In the above paper he shows that the error bars as they themselves claim far exceed the claimed CO2 forcing. The CO2 forcing is like a fart in the wind.

The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

This response says: No Way
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09...bility-of-global-air-temperature-predictions/

Once a source has been wrong - stupidly, obviously and unashamedly wrong - many, many times over, without a hint of apology or self-correction (despite a vast body of refuting evidence), that source can be dismissed without examination from future consideration.

In the HIGHLY unlikely event thst the "wattsupwiththat" blog were to post some genuinely compelling evidence, it would still be most effective to ignore it, and to obtain that new evidence from a less tainted source.

tl;dr - I am not going to waste an instant of my life on that site, and will therefore not be clicking your link.

 

[George S]

This response says: No Way
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09...bility-of-global-air-temperature-predictions/

Once a source has been wrong - stupidly, obviously and unashamedly wrong - many, many times over, without a hint of apology or self-correction (despite a vast body of refuting evidence), that source can be dismissed without examination from future consideration.

In the HIGHLY unlikely event thst the "wattsupwiththat" blog were to post some genuinely compelling evidence, it would still be most effective to ignore it, and to obtain that new evidence from a less tainted source.

tl;dr - I am not going to waste an instant of my life on that site, and will therefore not be clicking your link.

Okay, Executive summary.
Article 1 from fronteirsinscience claimed that no model could support AGW due to error-bar propagation.
Article 2 from wattsupwiththat says, no, climate models don't work that way. There is no error-bar propagation, errors cancel out.

 

[angelo]

Pure unadulterated bullshit! There is FA evidence for even a half % of increase or intensity of any storm or tornado world wide. In fact there's been less as if nature is also calling it for what it is=Bullshit!

Prove it.

Okay, A blind link which I know you hate, but it's too long to copy and paste. Now, keep in mind the rising population and major development of most of the country resulting in more damage and or causalities.

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/mccarthy/tor30yrs.pdf

 

[ZiprHead]

Pure unadulterated bullshit! There is FA evidence for even a half % of increase or intensity of any storm or tornado world wide. In fact there's been less as if nature is also calling it for what it is=Bullshit!

Prove it.

Okay, A blind link which I know you hate, but it's too long to copy and paste. Now, keep in mind the rising population and major development of most of the country resulting in more damage and or causalities.

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/mccarthy/tor30yrs.pdf

It's not a blind link when you explain what's in it. Thank you for doing so.

That article is about tornados, not the severity of tropical storms and hurricanes. My link talked directly about the severity of the storms themselves.

So, you have again failed.

 

[bilby]

This response says: No Way
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09...bility-of-global-air-temperature-predictions/

Once a source has been wrong - stupidly, obviously and unashamedly wrong - many, many times over, without a hint of apology or self-correction (despite a vast body of refuting evidence), that source can be dismissed without examination from future consideration.

In the HIGHLY unlikely event thst the "wattsupwiththat" blog were to post some genuinely compelling evidence, it would still be most effective to ignore it, and to obtain that new evidence from a less tainted source.

tl;dr - I am not going to waste an instant of my life on that site, and will therefore not be clicking your link.

Okay, Executive summary.
Article 1 from fronteirsinscience claimed that no model could support AGW due to error-bar propagation.
Article 2 from wattsupwiththat says, no, climate models don't work that way. There is no error-bar propagation, errors cancel out.

Meh. Models are not assessed by navel gazing.

Climate models (like all models) are assessed by whether their predictions are accurate.

You look at the real world, and see if it matches the predictions made years ago. Then you run the model again. If the short term predictions from the first run are correct, and the medium term predictions from the first run match the short term predictions of the sevond run, and the long term predictions of the first run match the medium term predictions of the second run, then you can be fairly confident in them. If not, not.

Climate modelling has been around for long enough to test it against reality. We know it works.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is there somewhere an article to read comparing old predictions to current measurements?

 

[lpetrich]

NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions have Proven to be Very Accurate, Within 1/20th of a Degree Celsius - Universe Today

The measurements clearly show that Earth is warming in lockstep with our carbon emissions. Since 1880, the Earth’s temperature has risen just over one degree Celsius, or two degrees Fahrenheit. And the most recent years are some of the warmest on record. That makes sense, since our emissions continue to rise.

 

[angelo]

Okay, Executive summary.
Article 1 from fronteirsinscience claimed that no model could support AGW due to error-bar propagation.
Article 2 from wattsupwiththat says, no, climate models don't work that way. There is no error-bar propagation, errors cancel out.

Meh. Models are not assessed by navel gazing.

Climate models (like all models) are assessed by whether their predictions are accurate.

You look at the real world, and see if it matches the predictions made years ago. Then you run the model again. If the short term predictions from the first run are correct, and the medium term predictions from the first run match the short term predictions of the sevond run, and the long term predictions of the first run match the medium term predictions of the second run, then you can be fairly confident in them. If not, not.

Climate modelling has been around for long enough to test it against reality. We know it works.

Climate modeling and the actual climate in the last few decades has a chasm between them as wide as the Grand Canyon!

 

[angelo]

NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions have Proven to be Very Accurate, Within 1/20th of a Degree Celsius - Universe Today

The measurements clearly show that Earth is warming in lockstep with our carbon emissions. Since 1880, the Earth’s temperature has risen just over one degree Celsius, or two degrees Fahrenheit. And the most recent years are some of the warmest on record. That makes sense, since our emissions continue to rise.

Excuse me, but are you aware or ignoring the fact that the planet is still coming out of the last mini ice age?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions have Proven to be Very Accurate, Within 1/20th of a Degree Celsius - Universe Today

The measurements clearly show that Earth is warming in lockstep with our carbon emissions. Since 1880, the Earth’s temperature has risen just over one degree Celsius, or two degrees Fahrenheit. And the most recent years are some of the warmest on record. That makes sense, since our emissions continue to rise.

Excuse me, but are you aware or ignoring the fact that the planet is still coming out of the last mini ice age?

Which doesn't explain the speed of warming that we have seen. You've never addressed the right hook in that XKCD.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Climate modeling and the actual climate in the last few decades has a chasm between them as wide as the Grand Canyon!

If you say so.