Emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, I don't see him mentioned anywhere in your link.

I looked up the Wikipedia page on Moore, on which he is quoted as saying "Temperatures and carbon dioxide levels do not show a strong correlation." which is preposterous.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, I don't see him mentioned anywhere in your link.

I looked up the Wikipedia page on Moore, on which he is quoted as saying "Temperatures and carbon dioxide levels do not show a strong correlation." which is preposterous.

What he said.

"In 2014, Moore testified to the U.S. Congress on the subject of Global Warming. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.” Moore continued, "The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today... Humans just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature ."

During Mezosic atmosphetic CO2 was 6 x with a net result of a difference of only 4 to 8 degrees.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00335.x/full

[Michael Hardner]

He may indeed have said that but at 1:35 he does say what I quoted him as saying:

 

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/what-they-havent-told-you-about-climate-change

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

 During Mezosic atmosphetic CO2 was 6 x with a net result of a difference of only 4 to 8 degrees.

Wait.  I just saw this - isn't that a correlation ?

[drummindiver]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wait.  I just saw this - isn't that a correlation ?

Hardly attributal to humans considering the time period.

edit-read what he wrote. That information is also in link provided.

Edited January 7, 2017 by drummindiver

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think anybody is attributing that to humans, but it does seem to correlate to CO2.  That's the fact of it.

[TimG]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think anybody is attributing that to humans, but it does seem to correlate to CO2.  That's the fact of it.

The biggest problem with the paleo-records is our "knowledge" is based on highly speculative guesses that depend on numerous assumptions which have changed over time. Given the fact that we have no way to definitively test the assumptions by going to the past and doing real measurements we can't place too much weight on such evidence. Furthermore, the best paleo-records are the ice cores which only go back a million years or so and they suggest that temperature changes cause changes in CO2 levels. I realize that modelers have come up for rationalizations for the apparent opposite cause and effect but it does illustrate that simple correlation does not always support the political correct narrative. 

[Michael Hardner]

There indeed are examples where temperature changes cause increased CO2.  That's a side-step from the idea that greenhouse gases are fictional and a non-starter.

I don't weigh in much on this topic, because the core ideas are challenged less and less often.  There are plenty of other topics to debate, as you point out, such as the economics of all of this.

[Bryan]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, I don't see him mentioned anywhere in your link.

I looked up the Wikipedia page on Moore, on which he is quoted as saying "Temperatures and carbon dioxide levels do not show a strong correlation." which is preposterous.

Not preposterous at all. That's a pretty accurate way of describing it. Temperatures may or may not rise with increased CO2, and even when they are associated, either one could come before the other. Certainly the version of the "strong correlation" we are generally told (that CO2 rises, then we get warming) is particularly weak, bordering on simply false.

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, Bryan said:

 Certainly the version of the "strong correlation" we are generally told (that CO2 rises, then we get warming) is particularly weak, bordering on simply false.

Certainly ?  Can I have a cite ?  Also note that we're talking about CO2 isolated from other factors like solar.

[-1=e^ipi]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I looked up the Wikipedia page on Moore, on which he is quoted as saying "Temperatures and carbon dioxide levels do not show a strong correlation." which is preposterous.

 

To be fair to Moore, he was probably referring to over the past 500 million years. Over which, there is only weak correlation, not strong correlation.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Furthermore, the best paleo-records are the ice cores which only go back a million years or so and they suggest that temperature changes cause changes in CO2 levels.

They cause each other. CO2 changes cause temperature changes, and temperature changes cause CO2 changes.

[-1=e^ipi]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Certainly ?  Can I have a cite ?  Also note that we're talking about CO2 isolated from other factors like solar.

 

No, that's how Moore can make his claim about a weak correlation. By ignoring other relevant factors such as solar irradiance or albedo changes.

[drummindiver]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think anybody is attributing that to humans, but it does seem to correlate to CO2.  That's the fact of it.

Not the fact of it. Just states CO2 was elevated at both times. 

2 hours ago, TimG said:

The biggest problem with the paleo-records is our "knowledge" is based on highly speculative guesses that depend on numerous assumptions which have changed over time. Given the fact that we have no way to definitively test the assumptions by going to the past and doing real measurements we can't place too much weight on such evidence. Furthermore, the best paleo-records are the ice cores which only go back a million years or so and they suggest that temperature changes cause changes in CO2 levels. I realize that modelers have come up for rationalizations for the apparent opposite cause and effect but it does illustrate that simple correlation does not always support the political correct narrative. 

The tests in the link I provided also used biomass.

36 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

They cause each other. CO2 changes cause temperature changes, and temperature changes cause CO2 changes.

Lots of things cause weather changes. Please note CO2 is at a higher level during ice ages.

 

[-1=e^ipi]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Lots of things cause weather changes. Please note CO2 is at a higher level during ice ages.

 

Nonsense, we have been in an ice age for the past 2 million years, and we are at historic lows for CO2 in the atmosphere. The only other time with comparable CO2 levels was 300 million years ago right before the permian-triassic mass extinction event, which was also an ice age.

[drummindiver]

54 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Nonsense, we have been in an ice age for the past 2 million years, and we are at historic lows for CO2 in the atmosphere. The only other time with comparable CO2 levels was 300 million years ago right before the permian-triassic mass extinction event, which was also an ice age.

, "The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today... Humans just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature ."

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00335.x/full

Edited January 7, 2017 by drummindiver

[drummindiver]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

I don't weigh in much on this topic, because the core ideas are challenged less and less often.  There are plenty of other topics to debate, as you point out, such as the economics of all of this.

 

The core ideas are actually being questioned more. Cook's 97% report is in disrepute and AGW is being shown to be a sham. Clean up the damn planet but let's not make silly.

[Michael Hardner]

That's another cite that I will ask you for.

 

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The fact that other factors influence temperature of the planet beyond CO2 does not contradict the claim that most of the warming over the past 50 years has been caused by CO2 emissions.

[drummindiver]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's another cite that I will ask you for.

 

Please be more  exact.

[drummindiver]

4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The fact that other factors influence temperature of the planet beyond CO2 does not contradict the claim that most of the warming over the past 50 years has been caused by CO2 emissions.

 There is no proof that it does.

Sorry,  I'm missing your point here. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by drummindiver

[-1=e^ipi]

Just now, drummindiver said:

 There is no proof that it does.

Sorry,  I'm missing your point hete.

 

Proof is a strong word. There is plenty of evidence that suggests that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Correlation is not causation....the earth has warmed and cooled many times before human beings ever existed.

[drummindiver]

9 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Proof is a strong word. There is plenty of evidence that suggests that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.

I've seen contradictory evidence. Are you worried about the current CO2 levels? They are low if anything.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/09/plants-encouraged-as-co2-levels-reach-400-ppm/

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

I've seen contradictory evidence. Are you worried about the current CO2 levels? They are low if anything.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/09/plants-encouraged-as-co2-levels-reach-400-ppm/

Nothing in that link contradicts the idea that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.