$60 Trillion Trouble

[jeb]

So let's get this straight...that little place at the top of the long climb in temperatures is a reason to think climate change is a fraud?

A fraud? Odd term to use. I don't think anyone has said that. Only that the FACT that 114 of the 117 models are wrong shows that this branch of science knows far less about the climate than it would like us to believe. Even your data shows the trend of warming has stopped. Certainly far too little solid science here to be "investing" trillions of dollars in to keep the sky from falling.

I suppose if you're going to be wrong you might as well be spectacularly wrong.

The trends speak for themselves.

That's one way to spin it, if you ignore the fact that 97+% of the models have been wrong. And the current trend, to use your word, is NOT warming.

We're sitting at the top of a long continual climb in temperatures with some variation. The period from 1960 to 1970 shows an actual decline in temperatues (primarily associated with particulate pollution), the same thing that's going on now in China where most of the global manufacturing productivity now occurs and is unregulated in any meaningful sense. That point has been out there for quite a while. Interesting you don't address that in your discussion about your models.

My models?! They sure as heck aren't mine. I used to build data models for business applications. Basically, you're asking a computer to predict the future for you. That works in things like engineering because they are able to run verifiable, repeatable tests to extrapolate the algorithms. And it works sometimes in other businesses, like business intelligence. But in an almost purely theoretical scenario like climate, the results were very predictable. In the real world, if modeling proved wrong 97% of the time, it would be a total failure. In climate science, it's a "Oh look over here, I'll pull a bunny ouf of my hat" time.

The carbon is still there...in fact there's more of it than ever, but a larger proportion is going into particulates. That's not suddenly going to reverse the current warming trend.

There is no "current warming trend" to reverse.

It can push down the effect of carbon in the short term, but in the long term the effect of increasing greenhouse gasses will still be around for the next 100 years.

The term greenhouse gases has no stable meaning. Co2 is claimed to be such a gas from the believers, yet even the latest, highly white washed, IPCC release say they've perhaps placed too much emphasis on it's forcings, to wit:

"There may also be ... an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing," the new report admits.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/possible-causes-to-the-recent/9845329

How many links would you like me to put up refuting the above information? It all smacks very strongly of CYA. Of course the IPCC and all the believers are going to find ways to dismiss or spin the truth. If AGW is not the boogy man they've claimed it to be, there goes a LOT of paychecks. But to the common man, hearing that the temps are not rising and that 97.5% of the models have been way wrong leads to more logical conclusions.

What else...oh yes...

The assumption that someone somewhere will continue to build up CO2 levels if we don't is entirely baseless. China is vastly more vulnerable than we are to climate change. Their policy people are beginning to make changes because they're beginning to realize they're cutting their own throats.

I have no doubt they'll eventually adopt some meager pollution control standards. But I'd bet they will never be anywhere close to where the developed world is now, let alone where the AGW zealots want us to be.

The IPCC has just issued their newest report and they're upgraded their certainty level yet again that humans are influencing the long term trend toward increasing temperatures.

Well of course they did. That's their business, to convince the masses of this impending doom, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", said the Wizard of Oz.

Here in Colorado, we've just had our 1st and 2nd worst fires ever over the last 2 years. We just lost 200 miles of roads, 50 bridges, 8 lives, and billions of dollars to the kind of event the climate change models predicted would become more frequent. The road I was hoping to take up to Rocky Mountain National Park for Thanksgiving Holiday is now the bed of a river. The glaciers are melting (you can watch that process over the last 30 years on Google Earth if you care to), the temps are rising, animals and plants are moving north and the temperatures are now higher than they have been over the history of our country. These are all the kinds of things that were predicted by climate change models.

Actually, flooding, hurricanes and tornadoes are down since 1950, according to http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/18/scientist-tells-senators-global-warming-not-causing-extreme-weather/'>this Colorado professor. I think the reason a lot of people think things are worse is because of the media attention and spinning everything as a AGW event. Well, except for those things that run counter to it's believes. Bad news sells, afterall. It's also interesting that a lot of events have hit bigger population centers the last few years. I always thought over the years how lucky we were that most of the major events missed big population centers. But that was just a matter of chance, really, and that luck was sadly bound to run out sooner or later.

Forest fires are largely natural occurances, and they are mostly good for the forest. It's how they renewed before man was ever around. I believe man is making them worse, but not with so called greenhouse gases. But rather with the limiting of logging and policy in many parks and forests of not clearing dead wood, having controlled burns, etc. You build a tinderbox, and it's going to burn sooner or later.

I am sorry to hear about the damage to your state, though. Some truely epic flooding that has impacted a lot of peoples lives. Sad event.

Am I alarmed by that? Am I an alarmist? Not really. There are practical steps that will help once we finally get off our butts and do something about this.

Please detail what these "practical steps" are and, more importantly, exactly how they're going to help. I mean quantify it, with real data. All I ever hear is the fuzzy stuff. "Oh, well, if we all ride our bicycles once a week instead of take the car, it will all be okay.".Not that kind of problem if you believe the alarmist.

[ness]

I got a new puppy!

[Flysmallie]

I got a new puppy!

I want a new puppy.

I should go see what they have at the Humane Society.

[jeb]

Puppies are cute!

[ness]

And dang near carbon neutral!

[ness]

What's not to like??

[jeb]

Looks like an English Springer Spaniel. I have 2 of them now. I guess I've had close to a dozen of that breed over the years, as I was big time pheasant hunter when I lived in MN. Great dogs.

[ness]

Naw, she's a Brittany -- but you were close. They look a lot alike as pups, and most folks are used to the orange and white Brits.

[Fly_Guy]

Imagine my surprise when I open a thread on climate change and find that it hasn't been shut down due to the usual name calling! It is vital to have this discussion in the fashion that y'all have been having it - like civilized human beings. And puppies never hurt either!

Interesting points. I have never been able to drive behind a truck belching smoke and think "this is nearly choking me - thank goodness it has no effect on the environment!" However, climate science is very very sketchy - it is a highly complex model to try to claim 'expertise' on...

[lee G.]

Well I'll be, Hickory N.C., I been there!