Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "On Donald Trump and the Conservative Movement (Pt. 1) | Andrew Klavan | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.
-
30
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Reuben Handel
Oh my... Well... here we go...
> "Your hypothesis is completely unsupported and the mechanics of how this warming would come about is not agreed upon at all even by the advocates ."
Nonsense... The phenomenon of "Global Warming" has been understood for more than 120 years. - Since Svante Arrhenius.
> "That is why the IPCC puts out such a huge range of predictions."
No.
The reason IPCC puts out a range of predictions is:
1) They can't predict future emissions. That depends on politics.
2) All science operation with error-bars. IPCC just makes them explicit. The result of the projection is a probability distribution. You don't get the whole picture by just saying "1.5-4.5 C" ... there are likelihoods associated with that spectrum. - as with all scientific results.
> "5 years ago their prediction was 2-6 C increase if we doubled c02. In the last couple years they have reduced that to 1.5-4.5 C if co2 were to double,"
You are confusing numbers. The only thing which changed was that the lower range moved from 2 to 1.5.
> "Now anyone with a scientific mind would immediately notice that their range is double what their low estimate is. Their margin of error is gigantic, it's silly"
No it's not... As I wrote above, it's a probability distribution. And that's actually all we need to do risk management. If there's only even a 5% risk of utter catastrophe, then it would be foolish for anyone to not try to mitigate that. If you boarded a plane and the captain told you there were a 1% risk the plane would crash - would you fly?
> "But the climate does change and that could be bad, so let's look at what measurements we have to determine the rate of change"
yeah... let's do that.
> "1. Tidal Gauges. These are by far the best measure because first of all the danger is coastal flooding; nobody cares if it's 2 degrees warmer tomorrow than today."
That might be true for weather - but it's not true for climate. 2 degrees makes a HUGE difference wrt. climate and impacts ecosystems and precipitation patterns. It's simply a fallacy to argue like we were talking about the weather.
> "It's all about flooding in coastal areas."
... and salt intrusion.
> "And second of all the tidal gauges go back into the pre industial age so we can compare the rate of sea level rise in 1850 to the rate in 2000 and see how much it was effected by the increase in c02.
So what do they say?
The sea is currently rising at a rate of just under 2mm per year (are you scared yet?)
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm"
Actually ... it's 3.4 mm/year, and accelerating.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
> "And the rate in the past was also just under 2mm per year which the IPCC reluctantly admitted
"No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/409.htm"
TAR was published 15 years ago. You are quoting obsolete statements.
Here's the AR5 text:
"There has been significant progress in our understanding of sea level change since the AR4. Paleo data now provide high confidence that sea levels were substantially higher when GHG concentrations were higher or surface temperatures were warmer than pre-industrial. The combination of paleo sea level data and long tide gauge records confirms that the rate of rise has increased from low rates of change during the late Holocene (order tenths of mm/yr) to rates of almost 2 mm/yr averaged over the 20th century, with a likely continuing acceleration during the 20th century (Figure 13.27). Since 1993, the sum of observed contributions to sea level rise is in good agreement with the observed rise. "
> "So the rate of sea level has not actually increased to any significant degree over the last century when all the co2 production happened. Nothing happened."
... which is simply a lie. Sea level is rising, it's consistent with the known thermal expansion of the oceans and the measures mass loss of the ice sheets. And it's accelerating.
Also ... you are COMPLETELY ignoring what we know about what's happening with the ice sheets and the fact that conditions has not been steady during last century. We have significantly increased our emmisions and there's huge inertia in the system.
You cannot just ignore such knowledge and pretend you can exptrapolate from from the past.
It's like driving a car fast towards a brick wall and claiming everything is fine, since you have been doing so for several minutes and nothing has happened - while you press the speeder even further down.
> "2. Satellite Measurements
Measuring the temperature of the entire globe was impossible before the satellite age. I know some people claim to have done it (this is called the GISS) but they are hacks and frauds."
sure... conspiracy theories are alway good arguments.
> "Besides actually measuring the entire globe instead of a tiny fraction (most of the earth's surface is ocean) the satellites also are not effected much by the urban heat island effect which ruins all of the land based attempts."
No it doesn't... it's been shown time and time again not to have any significant effect on the global estimate.
> "So in 1978 we figured out to use the satellites to actually measure instead of making wild estimates.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/October/tlt_update_bar_102016.png"
Yeah... and some people still haven't figured out that measuring surface temperature via satellite is NOT AT ALL simple. Actually ... the guy behind the RSS satellite dataset, Carl Mears, him self regard the surface temperature measurements as more reliable. Anyone claiming that satellite measurements provide some kind of ultimate truth is talking out of their ass.
Spend some time to look at the problems involved. There are a HUGE number of error factors for satellite measurements. Changing satellites, orbital decay, just to name a few.
> "So what we found was that first of all the rate of warming has been relatively constant since 78. Pay extra close attention to the period after 1998 which has an El Nino spike (like 2016) and notice the flat period for roughly 18 years after it. This is notable because in the 2000's China rapidly industrialized and doubled human co2 production. If these predictions were correct then we would have seen a massive increase to correlate with the massive increase in co2 production. But it didn't happen"
More nonsense... Even if satellite measurements were rock solid it would be stupid to assume that there's an instant temperature effect from increased CO2. That's not the case. There's plenty of inertia in the system.
It takes some time for the effect of extra CO2 to be expressed. That's why climate scientist operate with terminology like "Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity" and "Transient Climate Response" which are effects taking respectively centuries and more than 20 year to be expressed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
>"And so all the predictions that were made 30 years ago were proven wrong"
No. Actually... 2015 was right spot on what was predicted more than 15 years ago:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/
> http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-sn-global-warming-hiatus-20150603-story.html
... you should update your talking-points. They are 3 years old.
> http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
... which actually explain pretty well that we have known for some years now what the cause of the so called "hiatus" was: Internal variability due to the heat being temporarily absorbed in the deep Pacific ocean.
Anyone thinking this changes the fact of Global Warming needs to learn some physics. That heat absorption is temporarily shifted from the atmosphere to the ocean doesn't change the fact that the Earth as a whole in receiving 0.6W/m2 extra heat. It can only be a temporary effect and when it shifts back (AS IT HAS DONE THE LAST 3 YEARS) the atmosphere temperature will catch up the lost terrain.
2014, 2015, 2016 have ALL been the absolutely hottest year on record and every trace of any "pause" have completely vanished now.
> "This is why the IPCC drastically lowered their predictions from 2-6 to 1.5-4.5 recently."
No. From 2-4.5 -> 1.5-4.5. (you are still confusing numbers).
And they did that for AR5 which was released in 2013, since at that time the effect described in the Nature article above was not understood. It is now... actually we already had the basics at the time of the release of AR5, but editorial processes take time and such a huge report is almost certainly outdated already the day it is released.
> "And they are going to have to drastically reduce it again pretty soon. I see almost no possibility that we will come close to their high estimates"
Yeah... keep dreaming. Lie to your self.
> "The current rate of warming is just under 0.13 C per decade or 1.3 per century according to the satellites"
Actually ... it's more like 1.6-2.0 C/decade. But you still commit the fallacy of assuming linear extrapolation, - racing your car against the brick wall, looking in the rear-view mirror claiming you have everything under control.
Here's some actual research looking out in the actual driving direction:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2552.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1