This guy has no desire to ask questions but rather looks for whatever way to spin things to reaffirm his dangerously ignorant perspective. It is pointless to debate with okierock. A waste of intellectual energy.
okierock, sincerely, I can't get past your first sentence. Just, no. The *document* itself is called an executive summary for policy makers. That means: science that is more readable for people who have actually asked for information. We do the same thing for important matters like cancer. Is cancer research "all being done for 'policymakers'"? Um, no. But it matters for our society, our government, and our civilization really. DOD research also prepares reports for policymakers. You are concluding something pretty strange. Anything Congress gets a report on, according to your statement, must therefore ONLY exist for the sake of Congress. That it convoluted, and there is no other way to say it. If you prefer, there are hundreds, or thousands really, of (much more scientifically dense and difficult to read) scientific research articles on this topic. And I believe you have all the evidence you need about CO2, if you want to open you mind a tad to the data, *and* if you understand how "logarithmic" really works, and what the origins of a logarithmic change really are. The question is a pretty common red herring thrown out by those committed to AGW denial. I'm not sure logarithmic is even the best way to explain the data, but let's pretend for the sake of argument. Exponential effects arise from things that change by the same % over time. This is the most natural way things can change in nature, especially when slightly out of whack. Thinking that linear change is normal is a human bias not supported by much of the natural universe. In the end, I suspect, no matter how much time someone spent on here (and I have spent way more than I should recently), you would not accept a scientific view on this issue. You just trust certain sources and questions much more than you trust scientists and data, and that's fine. And that's a choice. We all have our tribes, ever more so in the US of A. I'm officially back into D&D climate retirement, (yea, and whew!) but I hope you enjoy my various jokes in other threads. Cheers, and no offense meant at all. I was sincere in my dialogue, or attempts at such.
Bob before you leave, by saying co2 is logarithmic in forcing - do you mean that most of the impact from future co2 increases diminishes?
Well, I'm not even sure what okierock means. I hear this thrown out a lot: why is the forcing logarithmic? Part of why I'm bowing out (other than reaching the end of the obvious run) is that I think I'd have to really go into "calculus teaching" mode. My simplistic take is that it works something like this: 1. With a set greenhouse level we could have, say, a couple of extra W/m^2 in the budget and then, with NO further carbon going into the atmosphere, you would have basically linear forcing, more or less. The extra CO2 would stay aloft and give you the extra intensity of input heat. Fine. 2. But CO2 is *growing* year to year and minute to minute, so I would guess the forcing (in models) must have to account for how CO2 has been growing (much faster than linear, but I don't know that it's exponential, especially lately). So one of the variables in 1 above now also changes with time so it just complicates the differential equations a tad. You can't get a linear solution when the amount of carbon is a dynamic (quickly growing) quantity. I'm not so interested in future projections (though I understand why the modelers are, of course, and why policy makers should be). We can get a solid enough grip on what has happened in the past, especially our recent past and the speed of change compared to historic changes, and a solid grip on the present, with a grip on the *trend*. Okay, so many real lectures to write for next week... over n out! EDIT: cohete, sorry. wasn't avoiding. Didn't see RCP question and don't even know what that acronym stands for. Next time maybe, though I know you're pretty convinced in your take on these things anyway.
I actually found it harder to read because I constantly found myself referencing the probability percentages every time I read a "likely" or a "virtually certain" or an "exceptionally unlikely". It feels like an opinion piece when you could just write the facts. I just don't like to discount the human factor in a report on a subject that creates its own industry. This is not a report about cancer. Cancer is something that you can go the the morgue and see the affects of, you can touch it and feel it and lose your grandmother to it. This is a report on what might happen if our models are correct(and they never have been). Policy IS being made based on these reports. I appreciate the time you put into trying to be patient with me and admittedly I'm not a scientist or math major so I'm trying to figure some of this out for myself. The only thing I have left to say is that the statement I bolded above bothers me a lot and it really is not true. What I won't accept is the opinion of somebody who's belief is based on the opinions of everyone else. I don't think that is what you are doing, so again, I appreciate your time. I do like your perspective that we should spend more time studying the present observable reality and less on the predictions but that won't drive policy or sell as many clicks.
Very likely in scientific terms means something very different than when people use it. People will say there's no chance in hell the Rockets beat the Warriors. But in science you would say that it is "very likely".
Then you just invalidated your own opinion on climate change and most other national/international issues. All of us are just talking about **** we read on the internet or saw on TV. If you doubt the medium, become a scientist or keep your peace.
I don't have to be a scientist to seek my own answers and I believe there are plenty of things on both tv and Internet that are more than opinions.
I wonder if the Sweet Lou's and rocketsjudoka's of the world even understand how the planet is warming. http://atlaslens.com/index.php/2015...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
In my opinion you drastically understate the worst case scenario. Worst Case Scenario is that we have a catastrophic miss-allocation of resources resulting in such things as worsening poverty,disease and malnutrition, and decreased development hampering our ability to effectively adapt or deal with problems or crises in the future.
It's already ungodly hot in places like India and Saudi Arabia. Why should they cut back their prosperity for the sake of diminishing a few days worth of heat waves for people at higher latitudes? Why should I here in Houston? It really is saying something that the two countries most affected by global warming, Rusdia and Canada, are some of the largest hydrocarbon producers. Yet neither country is in a hurry to do anything about it. Does it then seem fair to say that these countries can maintain their prosperity while others cannot? That's the political aspect of global warming.
Houston will be impacted by global warming. Higher gulf will have impact. And warmer seas will have impact. Sea life is already being impacted with lower oxygen levels. Reefs are dying globally. What is happening is drastic, and it is happening right before us. This isn't a question of prosperity or sacrificing it, it's a question of impact from a detached scientific view point. You can debate policy, but you can not debate science. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Spiralling global temperatures from 1850-2016 (full animation) <a href="https://t.co/YETC5HkmTr">https://t.co/YETC5HkmTr</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ypci717AHq">pic.twitter.com/Ypci717AHq</a></p>— Ed Hawkins (@ed_hawkins) <a href="https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/729753441459945474">May 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
We ignore more suffering for our next generation fighting for our own selfish share falsely labelled as fairness.
Yes you would just say that science doesn't mean anything. It would be a waste of my time, but you are free to google any of those things and see for yourself in the 5 secs it would take. Of course, you won't look into this since it doesn't fit your narrative but whatever. https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=oxygen in seas declining https://news.google.com/news/story?...ved=0ahUKEwiA-LC2j9XMAhXGVj4KHbNaBlcQqgIIKDAA
Meaning you can't debate empirical data. It's not subjective. The fact that climate change is happening and reefs, oxygen levels, and salinity is being affected isn't up for debate. At least not amongst the scientific community. Of course the response will be that scientists are paid by liberal groups and are pushing an agenda!
So to the "deniers", what is the result of adding gigatons of greenhouse gases annually to the climate?
