Blog commentary "Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 12 Years Later — None Happened!"

[Dovekin]

The rest of the warming is from mostly H20 feedbacks as you indicated, and the science here is very shaky .

Its shakiness is responsible for the broad range, from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. That is, the science is secure enough to assure that the change will not be 1 degree or less, nor greater than 6 degrees. It probably can be narrowed to 2.5 to 4.2 degrees by more recent science, but that is close enough to the 1.5 to 4.5 range that they (ipcc) decided not to change it.

Dissociating the settled from the shaky can be irresponsible. If people disagree about whether someone is 5’9” or 5’10”, it does not make sense to say “we don’t know, treat him as 3’ tall.” The uncertainty has been limited to between 1.5 to 4.5. There is no reason to revert to 1 degree, which is not likely to describe the impact of CO2 increases.

 

[Theo520]

Its shakiness is responsible for the broad range, from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. That is, the science is secure enough to assure that the change will not be 1 degree or less, nor greater than 6 degrees. It probably can be narrowed to 2.5 to 4.2 degrees by more recent science, but that is close enough to the 1.5 to 4.5 range that they (ipcc) decided not to change it.

Dissociating the settled from the shaky can be irresponsible. If people disagree about whether someone is 5’9” or 5’10”, it does not make sense to say “we don’t know, treat him as 3’ tall.” The uncertainty has been limited to between 1.5 to 4.5. There is no reason to revert to 1 degree, which is not likely to describe the impact of CO2 increases.

Actually the IPCC has backed away from giving a best estimate, so recent science doesn’t support narrowing the range.

Your analogy is flawed. It’s more like you held up a yard stick to a person and he was definitely taller than the yard stick (1C), but you don’t know if he was a couple inches or more than three yards taller (0.5-3.5C). That complete lack of certainty on how much taller than a yard shouldn’t be ignored.

It’s irresponsible to ignore how uncertain the science is on the H2O feedbacks, which could be almost nothing to a x3 game changing multiplier.

 

[Theo520]

It’s irresponsible to ignore how uncertain the science is on the H2O feedbacks, which could be almost nothing to a x3 game changing multiplier.

This broad side of the barn target for the impact of CO2 feedbacks (+0.5C to +3.5C warming) hasn’t improved, even after 30+ years of research. It’s very appropriate to say the science behind the feedback projections is unsettled.

WSJ: Climate Science Is Not Settled

 

[Dovekin]

Your analogy is flawed. It’s more like you held up a yard stick to a person and he was definitely taller than the yard stick (1C), but you don’t know if he was a couple inches or more than three yards taller (0.5-3.5C). That complete lack of certainty on how much taller than a yard shouldn’t be ignored.

I did not think it was a great analogy. Yours seems better, but I don’t understand why you minimize the impact… .5 of a yard is not “a couple inches” but 18 inches.

Even better we can give a concrete image by imagining snowfall. If you use your yardstick to measure, the comparable depths are 3 feet, 4.5 feet and 13.5 feet. 4.5 feet is not that different from 3 feet, unless you are short, or have children. Or if you want to be able to find your car. The range is broad, but that is not a reason to minimize or ignore it.

 

[Theo520]

Even better we can give a concrete image by imagining snowfall. If you use your yardstick to measure, the comparable depths are 3 feet, 4.5 feet and 13.5 feet. 4.5 feet is not that different from 3 feet, unless you are short, or have children. Or if you want to be able to find your car. The range is broad, but that is not a reason to minimize or ignore it.

Using snow feet, we are only certain to get a foot of snow, not a problem for finding your car and clearing the roads.

Beyond that it’s pretty sketchy whether we will get the extra .5 feet to 3.5 feet. If it’s closer to 4.5ft total, that’s a blizzard and will shut down the town for days. You can’t just assume the certain 1 ft of snow will be 3+ feet of snow with any confidence.

 

[po18guy]

Since we are “American Idiot(s), one nation controlled by the media”***
it is interesting if not illuminating to watch a leftist Norwegian intellectual dissect and deconstruct what he alleges is pseudoscience.

*** Green Day from “American Idiot” ®2004

 

[Dovekin]

Using snow feet, we are only certain to get a foot of snow, not a problem for finding your car and clearing the roads.

I was using the standard you suggested, the yardstick. Snow illustrated that standard, giving an idea of the magnitude of the difference. We can switch to feet, or inches, if you want, but then snow really does not illustrate the differences

The statement from the ipcc we are debating:

In conclusion, estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change, including estimates using longer records of surface temperature change and new palaeoclimatic evidence, indicate that there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.

I believe this is the source of the numbers you introduced. If it is not, let me know where you got the numbers and I will look at that. This was produced by looking at “multiple and partly independent lines of evidence,” not by a single well understood process you seem to want. IOW this is “shaky” science as you define it.

So what do we do? Your proposal seems to be forget the “medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C” and just ignore the multiple sources that point toward that range. I do not see how that is justified. Do you have evidence that there will be no impact?

Your position is better than Koonin’s, expressed in WSJ. Koonin also mistakes what is being done, and so is upset that he science has not narrowed the range in 30 years. The point is that all the multiple lines point to the 1.5-4.5 range; more recent studies point to a narrower range (see discussion of TCR), but they decided to keep the broader limits to include older studies. One solution is to get better science that will explain verything, certainly a good idea. But what we have is multiple sources that point to a specific range. Why shouldn’t we rely on that range just because all newer data also fit within it?

 

[IWantGod]

I think it’ll take a while but ultimately I think people will see through this agenda for the nonsense that it is.

I don’t think humans will still be alive when that happens. In fact, knowing what human beings are like there are probably people on both sides of the argument trying to take advantage, But this will never change scientific fact, and i think that it’s an inevitability that how we treat the planet now is going to effect our decedents; it doesn’t matter how far off in the future that may be.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t think humans will still be alive when that happens. In fact, knowing what human beings are like there are probably people on both sides of the argument trying to take advantage, But this will never change scientific fact, and i think that it’s an inevitability that how we treat the planet now is going to effect our decedents; it doesn’t matter how far off in the future that may be.

We can reverse the CO2 trend and thus global warming in 40 yrs, when we finally decide it’s important. Most of what happens now is just pandering, not really trying to solve the problem.

If we agreed on fixing the problem, we could replace all coal generators with cost effective nuclear generators. This could be done globally so even the 3rd world would have affordable power. It would also be fairly affordable since a bit of up front engineering could make them very safe and modular, factory built and assembled on site.

Nuclear plants now are akin to building a custom home where you need an architect, a capable builder, lots of code approvals, and more expensive custom materials. Each Nuclear plant goes through the same expensive process. But if you were building several thousand of them within a couple decades, you can leverage economies of scale that allow for better engineering and production efficiencies. They would be like modular homes that designed once to be low cost and safe, then built for a lower cost in a factory (with high quality) and easily completed on site.

 

[AlbMagno]

We would still have to deal with the problem of nuclear waste disposal, but I understand your point. There are many methods that look promising to solve nuclear waste, but haven’t been researched enough…

 

[Theo520]

We would still have to deal with the problem of nuclear waste disposal, but I understand your point. There are many methods that look promising to solve nuclear waste, but haven’t been researched enough…

Yes the waste is a challenge, but solvable if everyone was going in the same direction.

Next generation reactors need some additional engineering (hence my longer timeframe) but they can also use a higher percentage of the fuel and even burn our current nuclear waste as an (name removed by moderator)ut fuel. Thus they produce waste that is harmful for a much shorter duration.

I’ll know global leaders actually believe the threat is real when they start taking real action. Presently I think leaders just use the issue as political football but they don’t really believe the threat.

 

[Metis1]

Pope Francis, who is advised by scientists, very much feels it’s a threat, such as what he wrote in the “Encyclical On Climate Change & Inequality: On Care for Our Common Home”.

 

[Theo520]

Pope Francis, who is advised by scientists, very much feels it’s a threat, such as what he wrote in the “Encyclical On Climate Change & Inequality: On Care for Our Common Home”.

Have you read it?
I found it to be more generic on our need to protect the environment and work for the common good, to simplify our lives. It talks more about water and loss of biodiversity than man’s use of CO2. Climate change, whether man made or not, is real and his call to respond thoughtfully and protect our environment is relevant.

 

[Metis1]

I not only read it but also attended a five-evening seminar on it run by two Dominicans.

 

[Theo520]

I not only read it but also attended a five-evening seminar on it run by two Dominicans.

so do you agree with what i said, did you overplay what Pope Francis said?

 

[Metis1]

I hate to say this, but it is virtually impossible to have a serious discussion with some people, so I’m not going to even try.