Emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change

[drummindiver]

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

Again, there is a difference between mostly stable and fully stable.

The difference at 4000 was exceptional and indicated more than a little instability. 

 

[-1=e^ipi]

The difference between global Holocene optimum temperatures and global Little Ice age temperatures is only ~ half a degree C. That's pretty stable in comparison to 5 C temperature swings during the Pleistocene.

Edited January 8, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Again, and everyone knows this by now, correlation does not equate causation.That is the fact of that.

Of course that's the case, however we have human produced CO2 increases, and now temperature increases. In the absence of another explanation, there's really just one conclusion.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The difference between global Holocene optimum temperatures and global Little Ice age temperatures is only ~ half a degree C. That's pretty stable in comparison to 5 C temperature swings during the Pleistocene.

Again, your numbers are off.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/03009480701317421/full

[-1=e^ipi]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Again, your numbers are off.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/03009480701317421/full

 

They are not off. I was referring to temperature as a global average. Not regional temperature changes such as in Scandinavia. It's well known that there is more temperature change in polar regions and less temperature change in equatorial regions.

[drummindiver]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

They are not off. I was referring to temperature as a global average. Not regional temperature changes such as in Scandinavia. It's well known that there is more temperature change in polar regions and less temperature change in equatorial regions.

 

And you are also comparing apples to oranges.

[-1=e^ipi]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

And you are also comparing apples to oranges.

 

How?

 

It's just claim after claim from you; none of which refutes anything I wrote.

[drummindiver]

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

 

How?

 

It's just claim after claim from you; none of which refutes anything I wrote.

Take a look at your numbers. They are wrong.

You are comparing two eras of vastly different lengths then claim astonishment that the numbers don't match up. 

I have replied to everything you've stated. 

You've yet to say  anythin iteresting in this discourse except to Mr Hardner who is hardly a science fan.

 

 

[-1=e^ipi]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Take a look at your numbers. They are wrong.

If you think my numbers are wrong then likely you don't understand the difference between regional average temperature change and global average temperature change.

[Michael Hardner]

Why am I hardly a science fan ? This fan is still waiting for you to provide the cites I asked for.

[drummindiver]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

If you think my numbers are wrong then likely you don't understand the difference between regional average temperature change and global average temperature change.

 

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why am I hardly a science fan ? This fan is still waiting for you to provide the cites I asked for.

As stated,  a perusal of any infornation media will show you a plethora of discussion.

Wasn't the other cite asked for related to the topic you shut down? 

[drummindiver]

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

If you think my numbers are wrong then likely you don't understand the difference between regional average temperature change and global average temperature change.

If you believe this ridiculousness why continue vonversation?

[-1=e^ipi]

What is hard to understand?

 

I claim that global average temperature change between the Holocene Optimum and the Little Ice age was about 0.5 C.

 

You then give a link that shows parts of Scandinavia warming by 2 C, thinking it refutes my claim.

 

I then point out that regional temperature changes are not the same thing as global temperature changes and that polar regions (which Scandinavia is part of) tend to warm more than equatorial regions.

 

You then proceed to claim that you've demonstrated my numbers are wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

As stated,  a perusal of any infornation media will show you a plethora of discussion.

Wasn't the other cite asked for related to the topic you shut down? 

You made the claim, so it's on you to back it up.  As for my 'science fan' status, I would never use media personalities or popular media stars (or the founder of Greenpeace) to back up a claim.

I haven't demonstrated your numbers were wrong - I posted a graph showing temperature and CO2 levels, mostly to prompt you to respond which you haven't.  Please just continue your conversation with -1=e.... He's got more time for this than I do.  Once you have those cites, we'll continue - agreed ?

[drummindiver]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You made the claim, so it's on you to back it up.  As for my 'science fan' status, I would never use media personalities or popular media stars (or the founder of Greenpeace) to back up a claim.

I haven't demonstrated your numbers were wrong - I posted a graph showing temperature and CO2 levels, mostly to prompt you to respond which you haven't.  Please just continue your conversation with -1=e.... He's got more time for this than I do.  Once you have those cites, we'll continue - agreed ?

 

On Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Michael Hardner said:

By comparison, Zeke Hausfather in Science Magazine, cited above by -1=e:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(magazine)

Science was a general science magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was intended to "bridge the distance between science and citizen", aimed at a technically literate audience who may not work professionally in the sciences. The AAAS also publishes the famous science journalScience, the similar name leading to some confusion.

Zeke Hausfather

Zeke is an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with a strong interest in conservation and efficiency. He was previously the chief scientist at C3, an energy management and efficiency company. He also cofounded Efficiency 2.0, a behavior-based energy efficiency company. He received a bachelor’s degree from Grinnell College, a master’s degree in environmental science from Vrije Universiteit in the Netherlands, and another master’s degree in environmental management from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He has published papers in the fields of environmental economics, energy modeling, and climate science.

https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=Chq-VAIAAAAJ&hl=en

No?

[Michael Hardner]

No.  Suzuki doesnt qualify.  Hausfather does.

[drummindiver]

 

The Holocene as you well know is relatively new millenia. 

The Pleistocene is not. Plus if you redid the math it is over the 5C you stated.

-you are correct. I should not have inserted northern values.

Edited January 9, 2017 by drummindiver

[drummindiver]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.  Suzuki doesnt qualify.  Hausfather does.

Guys you like good. Guys I like bad.

Nice debating technique.  

[drummindiver]

zNo matter how much proof to the contrary AGW will not go away because it's big business.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification-yet-another-wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism/

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

 

Nice debating technique.  

No that's not right.  Read my posts - it's media figures that make the debate "bad" (your term).  Do you like David Suzuki ?  Because he is also "bad".  If you're new to this debating topic, then please look into how often the person you're quoting is cited in papers, as an indicator. 

In any case - once you have those two cites for me (that I have asked for multiple times) we can continue.  Until then I follow your lively debate witih -1=e.  Cheers.

[drummindiver]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No that's not right.  Read my posts - it's media figures that make the debate "bad" (your term).  Do you like David Suzuki ?  Because he is also "bad".  If you're new to this debating topic, then please look into how often the person you're quoting is cited in papers, as an indicator. 

In any case - once you have those two cites for me (that I have asked for multiple times) we can continue.  Until then I follow your lively debate witih -1=e.  Cheers.

Both have been quoted quite often.Suzuki beig the media whore probaby more. I have already suggested how you yourself can confirm AGW is indeed being talked about more. As there is no hard facts to present I'm going to trust one of sciences axioms...observation.

[drummindiver]

More and more are realizing it is prudent to at least be skeptical.

https://steemit.com/science/@zhanmusi/scientists-declare-man-made-global-warming-climate-change-a-complete-fraud-hoax

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Both have been quoted quite often.Suzuki beig the media whore probaby more. I have already suggested how you yourself can confirm AGW is indeed being talked about more. 

Agreed on Suzuki.  When it comes to cites, that's not how it works.  "Proof lies with the claimant".  If you don't have a cite for me then OK.

 

[drummindiver]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed on Suzuki.  When it comes to cites, that's not how it works.  "Proof lies with the claimant".  If you don't have a cite for me then OK.

 

I cannot find reputeable data indicating either way the discussion trends of AGW. It is my personal observation more people are discusing the skeptical aspect of it.

[Michael Hardner]

Fair enough.  The conversation continues.