You are succinct and concise. Thank you for simply disseminating truth. I don’t understand why people don’t want it no matter how bad it is. Shame on us. Not to be an elitist, but this shit is beneath me......
The IPCC does not and never has assigned distinct numerical probability numbers for temperature (or any other) climactic outcomes. They specifically use the terms low, medium, high probability. The 17% number is certainly cherry picked from an individual IPCC study or GCM model.
Secondly, the longer CO2/temperature record clearly shows CO2 levels triple or quadruple that of today. Where is the CO2 to do that going to come from now? It isn't going to come from fossil fuels. Mauna Loa data from 1959 to 2022 show an increase of a bit over 100 ppm over that 83 years - note that the US (and likely Europe's) oil consumption, for example, has been more or less flat since the early 1970s. Note also how Hansen - or at least the quotes put forward - carefully don't mention at what CO2 levels did historically ice free Antarctica occur. That's because a CO2 level of say, 800 would require 200 years to achieve even at the fastest annual atmospheric CO2 increase rates in modern history.
Thirdly, the typical alarmist trick: "transition to an ice free world". The "Eemian" scare graph is accurately noted to be backwards - but that graph is literally indistinguishable in the longer time vs. temperature vs. CO2 graph. The graph also conveniently hides the various warm and cold periods in human history - the Medieval Warm Period which is constantly attempted to be disappeared, the Roman Warm Period, the Little Ice Age that literally ended around the time of the founding of the United States and which conveniently is right around the time that "Its different this time" global temperature doomsayers pick their "rising temperature" starting point (LIA end 1850, man-made CO2 cause temperature increases compared vs. 1880s).
I particularly like the assumptive close that Hansen employs: "climate system characterized by a delayed response and amplifying feedbacks". Any systems designer in areas where amplifying feedbacks can occur, knows that such systems are inherently unstable. The climate, in contrast, is anything but unstable: the temperature differences in a single day are typically greater than the (now acknowledged by IPCC) nonsense of RCP 8.5 - which in turn is even more pessimistic than Hansen attempts to paint future CO2 emissions.
So while I am all for conservation and research to find better ways to generate/use energy - it is far from clear that these fast and loose interpretations of impending climate temperature increase doom, much less the garbage economic models based on top of these climate models, show any skill beyond agenda promotion.
The one positive I can say for Hansen is that he is not rabidly against nuclear power unlike the vast majority of his climate ideological brethren.
Nebulous bullshit means nothing to people living in reality. I’m gonna block you now because I’ve had my last time limit of stupid like today only bye bitch.
Calling your bullshit does not make me the asshole. Nothing in your original post is fact. That is because to have any credibility whatsoever you must cite a credible source. And you just saying shit on the Internet is not a credible source. If you cannot approaches from the standpoint of an honest broker, you need to leave.
It's terrifying to have learned much of this in 1964. Then hear virtue signaling conversations between our betters in NYC a couple days ago, at the Museum O' Natural History ; clutching desperately at any raggedy shard of denial they could snip from Guardian, The Atlantic or NewYorker? We were drilling wells to 37K' with 2 1/4" wall Q125 & titanium casing, or from floating platforms in 6,900' by the mid-90s before Katrina laid waste to MARS platform & Macondo (MC252) blow-out enabled slickwater fracking & bitumen pyramid schemes, we're picking trade war with Russia, to perpetuate? Like overlapping, unannounced novel COVID variants or exponential precariate income disparity, it's an offhanded conversation-stopper, right up there with police shootings & all us boomers becoming selectively senile, simultaneously? I'm guessing we're programmed by 70s disaster movies, into recognizing the foreshadowing snippets, from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, through Shaun of the Dead? API knew "time was running out," by 1965?
It’s profoundly saddening and depressing. And the worst is that even if fossil fuel use stopped tomorrow, which would have its own catastrophic effects, we’re still sailing towards disaster. And everywhere you look you can see ample evidence of no willingness to change if any sacrifice is involved. Thanks for writing this.
You are succinct and concise. Thank you for simply disseminating truth. I don’t understand why people don’t want it no matter how bad it is. Shame on us. Not to be an elitist, but this shit is beneath me......
The IPCC does not and never has assigned distinct numerical probability numbers for temperature (or any other) climactic outcomes. They specifically use the terms low, medium, high probability. The 17% number is certainly cherry picked from an individual IPCC study or GCM model.
Secondly, the longer CO2/temperature record clearly shows CO2 levels triple or quadruple that of today. Where is the CO2 to do that going to come from now? It isn't going to come from fossil fuels. Mauna Loa data from 1959 to 2022 show an increase of a bit over 100 ppm over that 83 years - note that the US (and likely Europe's) oil consumption, for example, has been more or less flat since the early 1970s. Note also how Hansen - or at least the quotes put forward - carefully don't mention at what CO2 levels did historically ice free Antarctica occur. That's because a CO2 level of say, 800 would require 200 years to achieve even at the fastest annual atmospheric CO2 increase rates in modern history.
Thirdly, the typical alarmist trick: "transition to an ice free world". The "Eemian" scare graph is accurately noted to be backwards - but that graph is literally indistinguishable in the longer time vs. temperature vs. CO2 graph. The graph also conveniently hides the various warm and cold periods in human history - the Medieval Warm Period which is constantly attempted to be disappeared, the Roman Warm Period, the Little Ice Age that literally ended around the time of the founding of the United States and which conveniently is right around the time that "Its different this time" global temperature doomsayers pick their "rising temperature" starting point (LIA end 1850, man-made CO2 cause temperature increases compared vs. 1880s).
I particularly like the assumptive close that Hansen employs: "climate system characterized by a delayed response and amplifying feedbacks". Any systems designer in areas where amplifying feedbacks can occur, knows that such systems are inherently unstable. The climate, in contrast, is anything but unstable: the temperature differences in a single day are typically greater than the (now acknowledged by IPCC) nonsense of RCP 8.5 - which in turn is even more pessimistic than Hansen attempts to paint future CO2 emissions.
So while I am all for conservation and research to find better ways to generate/use energy - it is far from clear that these fast and loose interpretations of impending climate temperature increase doom, much less the garbage economic models based on top of these climate models, show any skill beyond agenda promotion.
The one positive I can say for Hansen is that he is not rabidly against nuclear power unlike the vast majority of his climate ideological brethren.
That’s a train load of intentionally disingenuous bullshit. Every assertion you make is either out of context, or completely irrelevant.
go away, fossil fuel fellation boy.
I can always tell by the type of response, the stupidity of the author.
Nebulous bullshit means nothing to people living in reality. I’m gonna block you now because I’ve had my last time limit of stupid like today only bye bitch.
Facts were quoted, but numbskulls can't do anything but ad hominem.
Run away, run away.
Calling your bullshit does not make me the asshole. Nothing in your original post is fact. That is because to have any credibility whatsoever you must cite a credible source. And you just saying shit on the Internet is not a credible source. If you cannot approaches from the standpoint of an honest broker, you need to leave.
It's terrifying to have learned much of this in 1964. Then hear virtue signaling conversations between our betters in NYC a couple days ago, at the Museum O' Natural History ; clutching desperately at any raggedy shard of denial they could snip from Guardian, The Atlantic or NewYorker? We were drilling wells to 37K' with 2 1/4" wall Q125 & titanium casing, or from floating platforms in 6,900' by the mid-90s before Katrina laid waste to MARS platform & Macondo (MC252) blow-out enabled slickwater fracking & bitumen pyramid schemes, we're picking trade war with Russia, to perpetuate? Like overlapping, unannounced novel COVID variants or exponential precariate income disparity, it's an offhanded conversation-stopper, right up there with police shootings & all us boomers becoming selectively senile, simultaneously? I'm guessing we're programmed by 70s disaster movies, into recognizing the foreshadowing snippets, from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, through Shaun of the Dead? API knew "time was running out," by 1965?
https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-1/
It’s profoundly saddening and depressing. And the worst is that even if fossil fuel use stopped tomorrow, which would have its own catastrophic effects, we’re still sailing towards disaster. And everywhere you look you can see ample evidence of no willingness to change if any sacrifice is involved. Thanks for writing this.
"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."
—Kenneth E. Boulding (1910-1993)