Not really, I questioned the sincerity of Pielke Jr. and the evidence is there for anyone to just drop his affirmations when he is not publishing science. Again, it is clear hat Pielke Jr. did attempt to discredit all other researchers by adding better understood issues like droughts that become more likely and intense thanks to global warming in the same column with the less probable stuff like the number of tornadoes expected. If I have a complaint is that you are still depending on information coming from a source that many others have found to be unreliable.
When this whole sincerity discussion started, I quoted a particular sentence from you. Do you remember what it was? If you need help, you could go back and read #76 and #75. You weren’t talking about Pielke Jr. there. You were talking about me.
Meh, not falling for the sincerity hijack to avoid the point:
Pielke Jr, is not a good source and he was being deceptive. And what **wolfpup **cited was more accurate and not false.
I don’t care whether you “fall for it” or not. I care whether you keep doing it in the future or not (well, a little bit). You may not have known that what you were doing was rude until someone told you. Since it was done to me, I figured I’d be the one to tell you. I’m not asking for, or expecting, an apology, but it sure would be swell if you would avoid doing it in the future.
And now, back to, “the point”. You said “what wolfpup cited was more accurate and not false” (emphasis mine). Does that mean you don’t think what he wrote is accurate, or just his cite? Let me be as plain as possible. Back in post #55 wolfpup said:
Do you think that statement is completely accurate? mostly accurate? only somewhat accurate? or not at all accurate?
As accurate as current science tell us.
As noted that comes form reviewing many published peer reviewed papers, Pielke is indeed in the minority and the issue was that he added a few of those more certain bits with the uncertain ones like the number of hurricanes a warming world can get us.
Just focusing on droughts for a moment, how would you recommend that an impartial reader square these two statements:
That’s not very hard. The two statements are of different scale/regions. One is exclusive to the USA and the other about the regions of the world including the USA.
North America is a big place with many regions?
Everyone thinks global warming means summer all year round. It’s really global climate change in the sense of an alteration of historic weather patterns. Colder and more severe winters with hotter summers. Some areas experiencing more rainfall. Some experiencing much less. More intense and more frequent hurricanes, noreasters and superstorms.
So, for example, longer draughts in California and Texas with more intense storms and tornados in the Midwest.
How many more questions have you got? This is beginning to look a lot like “Gish Gallop” to me.
What do you understand the term “Gish Gallop” to mean and how do you think it applies to this thread?
That not all places on earth will behave the same. A few months back I do remember a discussion that pointed out how peculiar it was that Ethiopia looked to get better in a warming world, the projected changes in precipitation point at that region in Africa to benefit. Provided that they develop in a way to preserve water and resources.
Now the problem remains, as Peter Hadfield reminded us a while ago, that Greenland will be lovely does not change the evidence that points at several regions of the earth that were not doing so great when the earth got warming in some regions of the earth like in medieval Europe.
I’m trying to make a distinction between observed outcomes (basically things that “we are already seeing” to borrow wolfpup’s phrase) and projected outcomes (things that computer models tell us is likely to happen sometime in the future). Is it your impression that we have a high degree of confidence that the things you posted about are observed, or just projected?
Thank you for answering the question as to whether or not the purpose of this thread is to waste other peoples’ time.
If you don’t want to contribute to the discussion, fine, but please go threadshit elsewhere
I did contribute already, but I have a question for you: What do you think is the worst single consequence of global warming?
Sanctimonious liberals, but that’s just at a personal level. For the planet / entirety of the human race, I don’t know (which was why I started this thread), but what I’ve learned about ocean acidification seems pretty serious.
My apologies for the delay in responding, I was away and am just catching up now, and I probably can’t respond to every single thing that’s been posted in the interim. But my response to this is twofold. First of all, what Trenberth and many others are doing in this example is the science of attribution, which is far more important than just sitting around counting things when you’re not really sure what you’re supposed to be counting and it can be difficult to separate observed trends from natural variability except when it exceeds some arbitrary threshold of variance. To put it another way, understanding why climate change is contributing to extreme weather events, and quantifying that contribution, is truly the fundamental science.
The second point is that we do indeed also have observational evidence to support the theory, and you’re quite wrong in saying that “the IPCC is explicitly looking at this exact thing and says it’s probably not happening.” What the IPCC in fact explicitly said in the Technical Summary to the AR5 WG1 is the following (emphasis mine):
… there is new evidence that the influence of anthropogenic forcing may be detected separately from the influence of natural forcing at global scales and in some continental and sub-continental regions. This strengthens the conclusions from both AR4 and SREX, and it is now very likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes on the global scale since the mid-20th century. It is likely that human influence has significantly increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in some locations.
… Since the AR4, there is some new limited direct evidence for an anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation, including a formal detection and attribution study and indirect evidence that extreme precipitation would be expected to have increased given the evidence of anthropogenic influence on various aspects of the global hydrological cycle and high confidence that the intensity of extreme precipitation events will increase with warming, at a rate well exceeding that of the mean precipitation. . In land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for assessment, there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century.
But getting back to the first point, attribution is indeed the fundamental science, a fact explicitly acknowledged in this report: Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds which describes a different study on similar lines to Trenberth’s. Additionally, you can find similar discussions of the AGW link to extreme weather on the EPA website and in a Scientific American article series. For more detail and journal references, you can refer to Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR5 WG1 which deals with surface and ocean observations.
Finally, if you still feel that any statement I made earlier is inaccurate, please indicate what you think it is.
Are we settling in then, on a general consensus from the AGW Alarmists, that the single worst consequence is an increased frequency of “extreme” weather?
I do not think AGW Deniers will be particularly moved by that message…but perhaps I am mistaken? It seems rather vague and soft, and hard to quantify. If the world is just generally warmer and wetter with extreme weather more frequent, I’m not sure much traction will be gained for the idea that we have a crisis on our hands against which we need to act and act big.
Your Aleppos, Banda Acehs, and Fukushimas all compete with extreme weather for newsworthiness. My sense is that the polloi are generally convinced AGW is real but not generally convinced of the need to personally sacrifice for the common good, because the common bad (rain; heat) does not yet deliver to the individual enough pain. As a result, AGW Alarmism is moving away from being a Great Cause behind which we can summon the troops to action to being a Background Need relegated to the same general list as (for example) budget deficits and cancer.
I have been stunned at the lack of headlines/panic over the fact that any substantive AGW action is dead dead dead in the US with the election of Mr Trump. If, in fact, AGW is the greatest threat facing humanity, initiatives to mitigate it have just been gutted unless they can be effected without sacrifice. I am not saying the Alarmists are not panicking; I am saying the broader public no longer seems to give a rat’s ass over that particular issue. They are much more concerned with, say, immigration policy or whatever.
For AGW Alarmism to regain its prominence with the masses will require a clear elevator pitch about what the threat is, exactly. I don’t see that in this thread (and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it…).
And that’s the problem.
AGW is a complicated subject that causes many different effects, and is caused by many factors.
It is hard to reduce down to a 30 second or less “elevator pitch”. I would venture to say that any pitch that watered down is going to be inaccurate at best. Any predictions come with some level of uncertainty, so the simpler the prediction, the more likely it turns out to not come true. And if given an inaccurate prediction, you are less likely to pay attention to it in the future.
So, what you are saying is that people don’t have the attention span to care about such a topic. I don’t know that that is the fault of the people that do have the attention span. I don’t know what the solution is, but blaming the people who are working on the problem is not one of them.
Since you omit ocean rise and ocean acidification one can not take your post seriously. And neither we should take seriously the Trump presidency, except as confronting it for being so scientifically blind.