WH projects $1 trillion deficit for 2019

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So, show me the models you mean. The one that predicted what you (rhetorically) have said. Prove it. Not Al Gore said, not so and so said, the actual scientific paper (or pop media summary of it is fine; Anthony Watts blog doesn’t count). Until then, you are dismissed on this and I am done arguing with you. Not one credible global climate model said anything close to that.

Have there been some misses on models, absolutely, but to be completely dismissive is just stupid, and ignoring it is zealotry.

The ones I read and look at, which represent the best science out there have not been anywhere close to that. See the IPCC reports for examples. Not hair on fire, these represent consensus estimates, and tend to be conservative. In fact many of the vocal climate scientists often think they are too conservative.

Sea level rise, in the extreme is predicted to be north of 13ft in New London by 2100 (read rapid drawdown of Greenland and west Antarctic ice). High value is something like 9ft. The middle of the road estimates are 3-6 feet. If those middle values are anywhere near correct, costs and losses will be catastrophic, well before 2100.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t have the models. i know what the predictions were that have been released by the scientists. as i said, i have little doubt we need to change our ways, but as a scientist, when someone else is laughably wrong that consistently, they will
eventually lose credibility. i’m long, long past the point where
skeptical. 40 years ago we were facing an ice age, then global warming, then they defined it in the most vague possible term so that every possible result validated their theory...climate change.

i have solar panels on my house, and i spend more time in the woods getting dirty, and more
time on water getting soaked, than 98% of the planet, at least before we had kids that is. and i love animals more than 99.99% of the planet,,and cherish my kids futures more than 99.99% of the planet. so i’m heavily invested in a healthy planet .

but given their track record of making ridiculously wrong predictions, how can you not be skeptical? al gore got amazingly wealthy off this, and he doesn’t seem to be concerned, the only thing he’s unplugged in the last 20 years is his treadmill. if i was that wrong that often, no one would
listen to me. and they’d be right to laugh in my face. it’s still very very speculative because we are in unchartered territory here. we’ve never been in this path, so we can’t know what the effects will be.

accurate models ( like predicting how many times a coin will
turn up heads, or predicting mortality based on age), rely on a large set of data points to use to predict patterns and results, based on past observations. with this kind of climate change, we have no historical data to look at, this is all new. not easy to model
that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don’t have the models. i know what the predictions were that have been released by the scientists. as i said, i have little doubt we need to change our ways, but as a scientist, when someone else is laughably wrong that consistently, they will
eventually lose credibility. i’m long, long past the point where
skeptical. 40 years ago we were facing an ice age, then global warming, then they defined it in the most vague possible term so that every possible result validated their theory...climate change.

i have solar panels on my house, and i spend more time in the woods getting dirty, and more
time on water getting soaked, than 98% of the planet, at least before we had kids that is. and i love animals more than 99.99% of the planet,,and cherish my kids futures more than 99.99% of the planet. so i’m heavily invested in a healthy planet .

but given their track record of making ridiculously wrong predictions, how can you not be skeptical? al fire hit amazingly wealthy off this, and he doesn’t seem to be concerned, the only thing he’s unplugged in the last 20 years is his treadmill. if i was that wrong that often, no one would
listen to me. and they’d be right to laugh in my face. it’s still very very skeptical, because we are in unchartered territory here. we’ve never been in this path, so we can’t know what the effects will be.

accurate models ( like predicting how many times a coin will
turn up heads, or predicting mortality based on age), rely on a large set of data points to use to predict patterns and results, based on past observations. with this kind of climate change, we have no historical data to look at, this is all new. not easy to model
that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last points on this, I have work to do tonight, as I stay home and hang with the kids on Thursday's in the summer. If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage.

Good for you on all that. We are looking at solar when we need to replace our roof, but not yet.

We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes (and times when CO2 was way higher for geologic reasons in the past). The geologic record provides a wealth of information to compare to the historic data and make predictions about the future. The track record, which you call laughable of the models in the last decade or to in particular has been very good. Again, show me what you meant otherwise and we can discuss them.

As far as global cooling, see the link below. Check out the number of scientific publications that show warming vs cooling. This idea that scientific consensus was global cooling has lingered because of some famous articles in a few different pop media magazines.

https://skepticalscience.com/What-19...l-cooling.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Last points on this, I have work to do tonight, as I stay home and hang with the kids on Thursday's in the summer. If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage.

Good for you on all that. We are looking at solar when we need to replace our roof, but not yet.

We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes (and times when CO2 was way higher for geologic reasons in the past). The geologic record provides a wealth of information to compare to the historic data and make predictions about the future. The track record, which you call laughable of the models in the last decade or to in particular has been very good. Again, show me what you meant otherwise and we can discuss them.

As far as global cooling, see the link below. Check out the number of scientific publications that show warming vs cooling. This idea that scientific consensus was global cooling has lingered because of some famous articles in a few different pop media magazines.

https://skepticalscience.com/What-19...l-cooling.html

"If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage"

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-didnt-happen

https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24...t-predictions/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...e-predictions/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...lly-everything

http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-...edictions.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...d-did-not-end/

I can go on and on...

"We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes"

The hell we aren't. We've never had this much of the world become industrialized, using fossil fuels at this pace in these amounts. Because that has never happened before, we don't know what the effects will be. It's not very complicated.

Solar panels - we've had an awful lot of dead birds thanks to the panels (thy keep nesting under there and then cook), and I've read that the panels are a huge mess to dispose of when they no longer function. So is it a net benefit to mother earth? I don't know. Again, the greenies didn't quite get it right, and that's a LOT simpler than trying to predict climate change impacts across all the complicated ecosystems on our planet.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage"

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-didnt-happen

https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24...t-predictions/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...e-predictions/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...lly-everything

http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-...edictions.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...d-did-not-end/

I can go on and on...

"We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes"

The hell we aren't. We've never had this much of the world become industrialized, using fossil fuels at this pace in these amounts. Because that has never happened before, we don't know what the effects will be. It's not very complicated.

Solar panels - we've had an awful lot of dead birds thanks to the panels (thy keep nesting under there and then cook), and I've read that the panels are a huge mess to dispose of when they no longer function. So is it a net benefit to mother earth? I don't know. Again, the greenies didn't quite get it right, and that's a LOT simpler than trying to predict climate change impacts across all the complicated ecosystems on our planet.

Thanks.
I looked at them, one looks like a duplicate in part. Most are taking predictions with no date or time in them, and saying ‘wrong’ when really, the implications of the original source is probably later this century....

Were some of the crazy predictions made in the 70’s a bit dramatic (centered around the earth day origin), sure. Does that mean we should ignore everything since then, nope.

I read your links, read the ones I posted, watch the model clip.

The first one, Cato said we need to have it dealt with it by now (2000, 2012) meaning, reducing CO2. Not a prediction that by 2019 Philadelphia would be ocean front. The prediction mentioned was 2080 or something similar

The second was broader on environmental issues, not really climate change.

Watts list covers things with no time mentioned in many, only in the future, except a few at 2030, 2050 and 2080. How can they be ‘wrong’ in the future.

The new American claim that temperature has not risen since 1996 has been debunked. Do some reading on skeptical science, it has some good explanations in a reasonable way.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-...ed-in-1998.htm

Humans are free list I don’t have time to deal with, and would have to pull a few sources, as I am not up on things like tornado predictions, but #1 is flat out wrong, sea level is rising, and that rate of rise has accelerated in the last few decades. Tide gauge records and satellite altimeter data shows this. A colleague’s work with his grad students suggests locally, this is the highest rate in 3,300 years at least, based on studies of past sea level in marshes. The one on temperature being flat is also wrong, see above.


You are right, we are in uncharted territory for the rate of industrialization and CO2 emissions. There are also times in the geologic past, due to other processes/reasons, CO2 was higher. At those times, sea level was much higher than present and the temperature was much warmer. As you are wont to say, try making that wrong

As far as solar panels, all energy production has consequences. All. I am waiting and hoping for solar shingles!

Good night Jim.
Sorry for derailing the thread on the deficit....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Sorry for derailing the thread on the deficit....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you have a fabulous brain

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Thanks.
I looked at them, one looks like a duplicate in part. Most are taking predictions with no date or time in them, and saying ‘wrong’ when really, the implications of the original source is probably later this century....

Were some of the crazy predictions made in the 70’s a bit dramatic (centered around the earth day origin), sure. Does that mean we should ignore everything since then, nope.

I read your links, read the ones I posted, watch the model clip.

The first one, Cato said we need to have it dealt with it by now (2000, 2012) meaning, reducing CO2. Not a prediction that by 2019 Philadelphia would be ocean front. The prediction mentioned was 2080 or something similar

The second was broader on environmental issues, not really climate change.

Watts list covers things with no time mentioned in many, only in the future, except a few at 2030, 2050 and 2080. How can they be ‘wrong’ in the future.

The new American claim that temperature has not risen since 1996 has been debunked. Do some reading on skeptical science, it has some good explanations in a reasonable way.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-...ed-in-1998.htm

Humans are free list I don’t have time to deal with, and would have to pull a few sources, as I am not up on things like tornado predictions, but #1 is flat out wrong, sea level is rising, and that rate of rise has accelerated in the last few decades. Tide gauge records and satellite altimeter data shows this. A colleague’s work with his grad students suggests locally, this is the highest rate in 3,300 years at least, based on studies of past sea level in marshes. The one on temperature being flat is also wrong, see above.


You are right, we are in uncharted territory for the rate of industrialization and CO2 emissions. There are also times in the geologic past, due to other processes/reasons, CO2 was higher. At those times, sea level was much higher than present and the temperature was much warmer. As you are wont to say, try making that wrong

As far as solar panels, all energy production has consequences. All. I am waiting and hoping for solar shingles!

Good night Jim.
Sorry for derailing the thread on the deficit....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

bry, you say we produced more carbon in the past, i cant disprove that. but we don’t know what it means, or what the effect of current conditions will be. because current conditions are, as you conceded, unique.

i am completely persuadeable on this issue, i’ll go wherever science, not political zealots, take me. i’m not any kind of science denier, but i’m not clinging to an ideology either.

are there any problems in the world
today, for which the solution, isn’t to give liberals more power?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device