BrentGolf:
Somebody around here unfamiliar with global warming, the crisis?
Abacus:
Taiwan is much cleaner now than before. I know I was there. I also know how it cleaned up. Welcome to the party!
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Perfectly correct statement!
More development in alternative energy, transportation and production lines.
I hope you did not mean selling 1000 000 000 SUVs to the new rich when you said development.[/quote]
Never thought about (whatever number you have provided) SUVs… but now that you mention it… the air seems to be getting better and that may be because there are no VWs in Taiwan. OF COURSE, I, too, believe Matthias Muller when he says he didn’t know… or was it that he was only following orders or…[/quote]
I made that number up. I know 75 950 600 looks more scientific. My bad! I made up that number too.
Now, you are talking about clean or dirty air and not about CO2 specifically.
About VW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
There were some co2 irregularities also, but they were not the main problem for that specific matter.
It was more about their diesel engines and the problems coming along with burning diesel.
Otherwise the vw passat diesel has a low fuel consumption.
[quote=“fred smith”]BrentGolf:
Somebody around here unfamiliar with global warming, the crisis?
Abacus:
Taiwan is much cleaner now than before. I know I was there. I also know how it cleaned up. Welcome to the party![/quote]
Yeah it’s cleaner now. They phased all the 2 stroke scooters out somewhat in 1997. Back then, walking from Taipei main station to Chian Kai Check memorial hall, and my nostrils where black. Really black. Black booger.
My boogers are not black anymore. Great achievement!
But how to make the connection to global warming?
[quote=“fred smith”]BrentGolf:
Somebody around here unfamiliar with global warming, the crisis?
Abacus:
Taiwan is much cleaner now than before. I know I was there. I also know how it cleaned up. Welcome to the party![/quote]
I will give you a hint - more development of the island using the same archaic technologies didn’t clean up the air. Or at least I am assuming that you weren’t in favor of more expensive emissions controls and more expensive fuel sources (nat gas or cleaner coal). Perhaps you were that guy that was supporting all of these air quality improvements at the time despite the higher additional cost.
Sorry guys but I brought up air quality as an easy example of how fossil fuels are clearly an issue and how these environmental ‘alarmists’ have greatly improved something despite a significant added cost to vehicles and energy production. And in the end these added costs didn’t sink the economy. The same is true of continuing to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.
@ Fred Smith. It is strange to me that you continuously use decades old predictions that didn’t come true from people who you yourself call climate change alarmists, and this is somehow proof of the hoax today.
Doesn’t it make more sense to you that we should be using up to date information from well renown scientists instead? Sure it’s dirt simple to find radical predictions from 50 years ago talking about how England will be gone, or our children will be living in bubbles, but why even bother? OBVIOUSLY there are climate change alarmists, but why should anybody, you or me care about what they have to say? Shouldn’t we only care about what the best and brightest in the field have to say using today’s up to date information?
You know, there are actually quite a few people in this world who trust the scribblings of bronze age peasants over what modern day scientists have to say. Aren’t you doing the same thing? Aren’t you also getting your information from outdated and ignorant sources? Favoring what some weirdos in the past had to say rather than what modern science has to tell us today?
So if you’d like to have conversations about climate change, we shouldn’t expect any reference to outdated predictions from obvious alarmists should we? So why are they riddled in virtually every post you make? Is it perhaps because that’s all you have?
Step your game up my friend. Using alarmist arguments to prove others are alarmists is pretty weak.
How interesting that BrentGolf finds the IPCC models and predictions worthy of only complete and utter contempt. Well, I am glad that we finally agreed upon something.
Also, very interesting is it not that some seem to conflate CO2 with pollution. CO2 is not harmful to health. What? Did you all fail science class?
No you scientifically illiterate snowflake, I find some of the decades old scientific predictions less valuable than current ones, as would anybody who respects the process of forward progress. With the information at the time some of those predictions made sense at the time, but with current science they no longer do. How on earth do you not understand that dirt simple concept? Science evolves, and knowledge and information grows. I see no value in using old predictions of the past to judge the current state of the science of climate change. Just like I see no value in using outdated morals from the bronze age to guide peoples lives today. Funny how that works huh Fred.
Apparently Rowland isn’t the only one here who doesn’t actually know what the word science means, amazing…
BTW Fred, when people talk about CO2 and climate change, they are referring to the dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. When people talk about pollution, they are referring to things that are harmful or poisonous. Nobody said anything about breathing in CO2 as we all do with every breath. 
Words in the English language have definitions my friend. I suggest you learn them before using them. 
No you scientifically illiterate snowflake, I find some of the decades old scientific predictions less valuable than current ones, as would anybody who respects the process of forward progress. With the information at the time some of those predictions made sense at the time, but with current science they no longer do. [/quote]
And why should the predictions you now value not also have an expiration date?
All of the computer models have now fallen so far out of the range of acceptability that they are flawed. It is that plain and simple. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
And weren’t you the one who was talking about having oxygen in the air? so you seem to be changing your mind AGAIN about what you mean by pollution. Now you are clarifying it as anything harmful. That is NOT what you wrote earlier… We get that you don’t get this whole thingamagig about the climate. But you do like to hear yourself talk. Gaseous, bloviating windbag that you are
No you scientifically illiterate snowflake, I find some of the decades old scientific predictions less valuable than current ones, as would anybody who respects the process of forward progress. With the information at the time some of those predictions made sense at the time, but with current science they no longer do. [/quote]
And why should the predictions you now value not also have an expiration date?[/quote]
Science has no expiration date, it is constantly evolving. There is no day of reckoning when we suddenly say ok, today’s the day. Everything we know up to this point will now be measured and graded. That “day of reckoning” happens every second of every day for the entire lifespan of the universe, or at least humans involvement in it.
You are AGAIN confusing individual opinions with science. Individuals and their own work have expiry dates. A person can only be wrong for so long before you disregard what they have to say. Science on the other hand is a process, and is comprehensive. There is no day when we will suddenly say, “science” is wrong. It’s never wrong.
It always represents the best explanations given the current knowledge base.
Secondly, unless you’ve build your own DeLorean you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for it that modern science is wrong and it’s predictions aren’t accurate. I’ll trust the best and brightest in the painstakingly long process of testing and verifying the current knowledge base and continuously cross testing and vetting it through peer review.
Oh it’s all now? You have zero basis to make that claim, just like you have zero basis or proof for any of your economic claims you’ve made about billions wasted etc etc. Are you honestly saying you have analyzed every single prediction about climate change ever made and found them to be false, and analyzed the books of all money spent and backed out all positive benefits in some great Fred Smith cost benefit analysis?
You’ll forgive me, but I doubt you have it in you to do a comprehensive analysis of what you ate for breakfast let alone the entire body of climate science.
Secondly, who cares how many old predictions didn’t come true? Does science care about that? Do you know how many thousands of years went by with the smartest people in the world thinking the earth was flat. Should that have ANY bearing on what’s actually true? Of course not. The earth was flat when the evidence said it was. The earth was round when the evidence said it was. How is this hard to understand?
Again, I’m speaking to two guys who actually don’t know what the word science means. I’m not expecting much good to come from this conversation. Maybe we’ll just wrap it up. Hahaha, stupid science egg heads, England is still here. Dummies !
[quote]Even with the strong surge in global temperatures from the current El Niño and from the surge of 2015 global warming exaggeration and fabrication (here, here and here), there remains the strange case of establishment climate science models failing to meet expected outcomes.
Case in point. This chart replicates the famous climate model output presented to Congress and the world in 1988 by James Hansen, the then chief climatologist of the NASA/GISS climate research unit. (Here is an image of the original chart.)
The climate model predicted annual temperature changes would follow the bright green curve if greenhouse gases (GHGs) were not curtailed. GHGs include: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride - the latter 3 are known as fluorinated greenhouse gases.
The orange curve represents the predicted annual temperature changes if the GHG growth rate were reduced over time.
The chart’s cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted annual temperature changes if GHGs were curtailed by governmental polices and regulations so that year 2000 and beyond had a net growth rate equal to zero.
From the Hansen 1998 testimony, there is this statement:
“We have considered cases ranging from business as usual [BAU], which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000.”
From the 1988 Hansen peer-reviewed article that supports his testimony, there is this statement:
“We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario ‘A’ [chart’s green curve] assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario ‘B’ [chart’s orange curve] has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario ‘C’ [chart’s cyan curve] drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.”
So…since NASA’s top climate expert’s testimony, what has happened with the GHG growth and growth rates?
From a recent U.S. EPA report on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, there is the following:
“Global non-CO2 emissions are projected to increase significantly between 2005 and 2030 unless further actions are taken to reduce emissions…total emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases have nonetheless increased.”
From the latest IPCC AR5 climate report, we know the following about GHGs (a synopsis here):
“Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period. Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2 %) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year from 1970 to 2000. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010.”…
In addition, the combination of CO2 fossil fuels emissions and CO2 emissions from deforestation, forest fires and peat burning have grown from 72% of all GHG emissions in 1970 to 76% of all GHG emissions.
Regarding fossil fuel CO2 emissions, specifically (CO2 data here): NASA and Hansen’s ‘BAU’ Scenario A was proposed at a time when CO2 emissions were growing: since 1972, the 15 years ending 1987 the world emitted 285 billion tonnes of CO2. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.2% per year for those 15 years prior to Hansen’s 1988 testimony.
In contrast, for the 15 years ending 2014, the world has emitted a total of 467 billion tonnes - that is growth some 1.6 times greater than Hansen’s ‘BAU’. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.9% per year for the period since 1999.
Without any doubt, both empirically and objectively, NASA’s Hansen’s projected GHG emissions for ‘Scenario A’ has easily been exceeded since his testimony in 1988. To state otherwise is a falsehood, categorically.
Now, back to the above chart.
For the year 2015, NASA’s model predictions had temperature change for all 3 scenarios declining. Of course, we now know the exact opposite took place with the sharp increase in 2015 global temps.
It is important to note that since the 1988 testimony, the NASA climate predictions have very rarely been correct regarding annual temperature changes. (NASA is not an exception, though - all climate computer models and experts suffer the same level of failure.)
For what it’s worth, the chart also shows the 2016 predictions: there is continuing decline for Scenarios B & C, but a sharp spike up for Scenario A to a record calendar year anomaly level.
While global warming alarmists are celebrating 2015 as the “warmest” year ever, the climate model failures clearly point to the absurdity of focusing on peak or trough moments as indicators of informed expertise. Peaks happen and troughs happen, in weather and climate, but pointing to either as scientific proof of computer simulations is not science.
Taking that to heart, the accompanying chart has 3-year average plots of highly adjusted observed temperatures from the NASA and UK climate agencies - the 3-year averages remove the focus from peaks/troughs.
As can be seen, 3-year averages of the GISS and HC4 datasets depict the last 3-year average increase due to the El Niño conditions, and those questionable man-made factors.
Be that as it may, the GISS and HC4 averages still remain closer to the realm of NASA’s Scenario C range. As a reminder, the Scenario C predictions are a result of net zero GHG emissions simulated to have started in year 2000, which is yet another galaxy away from reality.
In conclusion, some relevant takeaways on climate models:
-
At this point, now close to 3 decades after NASA’s testimony, one can safely surmise that expert climate models can’t predict squat. The climate is a chaotic complex that defies even the most sophisticated and powerful forecasting tools.
-
GHG emissions have far surpassed the 1988 “world-will-soon-end” BAU construct - a construct that many alarmists still believe. Yet the predicted positive feedback from BAU has not occurred and thus runaway global warming is, without question, AWOL.
-
The climate models are still absolutely unable to discern either the amount or rate of global warming/cooling that is due to natural forces. The models were designed to purposefully rely on greenhouse gas forcings as their major causal factor, while diminishing natural climate impacts. It’s no wonder that climate models remain on a fail path.
-
Based on the model outputs from 1960 to the present, policymakers and the public would be better served by rejecting the alarmist scenarios A and B; instead, moving forward, base all adaption and mitigation policies on Scenario ‘C’, which would likely produce better outcomes with superior allocation of scarce resources.
The climate models definitely have their important place in the climate researcher’s toolbox. They are best suited to advance science’s better understanding of our world, but their climate predictions, forecasts and prognostications should never be relied on - they are unreliable and inaccurate.[/quote]
In your own words fred, not long walls of quoted text. Perhaps with a link too next time?
OR… and I realize that this is the difficult part especially when dealing with BrentGolf’s turgid posts, those reading them might realize that I am answering a specific question that specifically (didn’t I say that already?) cannot be in my own words because they were “doubted” by the likes of an intellect that sneers at someone like Donald Trump. I don’t know… I don’t get it either. Penis envy?
Donald Trump has a penis?
Apparently so… and apparently all of those mocking his intelligence clearly have a much bigger one… albeit one that they have to put in far less expensive threads… given that they are so less impohtant (think about it… think about it…) than the Donald.
So basically you have no sources, links or charts to support any of that? Keep up the denial. 
Exactly. And because I realize that my denial is wrong, I have started an NGO to fight climate change. Would you like to be the first to donate? I am going to go raise awareness in Rio for several weeks.
I sneer at both the Donald and you, so if you like you can view that as being in good company. I’ll even go a step further for you Fred. I think you are exactly as intelligent as Donald Trump is. I think you both have the exact same capacity for identifying what evidences means, and I think you are both equals in communication skills 
i went to the doctor once, and he said i was impohtant. Man, i felt good.
Ah… somebody need a nap?
Sounds ominous? a full diaper this time? a feisty throw of your rattle?
Actually, I will take that as a compliment. By all accounts, despite your views of his policy stances or behavior, he IS intelligent.
What do you mean? I don’t quite get you? Perhaps, you could identify some better evidence or maybe improve your communications skills? Maybe? Damn! It was a full diaper. I guess it just ain’t a baby tossed the rattle kind of day, eh?