Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

December 13, 2015, 11:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Paris: impacts? by Peter M Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Nick Stokes

$

0

0

Barry,

“I don’t agree with the view that RCP8.5 is the “worst” case out of a range of possible cases.”

I do not understand what you are attempting to tell us.

RCP8.5 was a “worst case” in two senses. First, trivially, it was the worst of the 4 RCPs used in AR5. Second, it is a “worst case” of the sort used in risk planning. That is, a worst case with a probability worth considering.

RCP8.5 is of course not the worst possible case, although developing more severe outcomes would take us into dystopian worlds. However, at some point extreme outcomes are seldom worth preparing against. Does your financial planner consider a post-atomic war scenario? Does your home fallout shelter stock “Change of Address” postcards?

---

Comment on Paris: impacts? by Peter M Davies

December 13, 2015, 11:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

$

0

0

Molten Salt Reactor

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

December 14, 2015, 5:47 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

≪ Previous: Comment on Paris: impacts? by Peter M Davies

$

0

0

As I have said many times here, 30-year trends are very stable within 10%, while 15-year trends vary from zero to twice the 30-year trend. It tells us something about the time scales of the other variations.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

December 14, 2015, 5:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

$

0

0

Ron,

“Here is a free paper cited by Skeptical Science”

It is cited (with a link) in my essay.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

December 14, 2015, 5:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Paris: impacts? by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

$

0

0

Probably the worst period to take a trend over is 15-18 years, because that is one and a half 11-year cycles, and the regular solar max/min variation would heavily influence those time scales.

Comment on Paris: impacts? by Mike Flynn

December 14, 2015, 6:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

$

0

0

RiHo08,

With respect, I wonder if Government funded research would achieve any additional benefit compared with funding no research at all.

Newton managed to invent the Newtonian telescope without the aid of Government research funding. Thomas Alva Edison (and others) gave us things like the gramophone, the electric light globe and so on, without being a participant in a Government funded research program.

You get my drift, I hope. I don’t wish to belabour the point, although Warmists appear to live in denial of both history and reality.

I see no problem with a Government offering rewards for the practical application of a known theory. The British Admiralty had a prize of £20,000 for a useful timekeeper with particular properties. Harrison’s marine chronometer resulted.

Vastly expensive Government research programs have a habit of producing extremely expensive solutions to non existent problems. Alternatively, they can produce extremely expensive non solutions to problems which actually exist.

It just seems that the cost effectiveness of Government research programs is subject to reasonable query.

Cheers.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by PA

December 14, 2015, 6:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by willb01

≪ Previous: Comment on Paris: impacts? by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

The ocean acidification is easy to solve. If the greens keep complaining we should start dumping coal ash in the core ocean (the desert part in the middle where nothing lives). This would create life in a “desert” much like CO2 does on land and would counter any neutralizing influences.

If done properly we could farm the core ocean and get much of our seafood from the farmed area.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by willb01

December 14, 2015, 6:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by PA

$

0

0

So does this mean your prediction for the next 15 years is that climate models are going to severely underestimate global warming?

---

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Don Monfort

December 14, 2015, 6:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by willb01

$

0

0

Your compadre horse grabber said you are high, yimmy. Dude is an agreement denier, like Hansen.

Tell him about Paree, yimmee. We be saved! Nobody is going to pay Happer’s transportation, after this. He’ll have to stay home.

RCP8.5 is a dead issue. We are going to hold it under 2C. We are shooting for 1.5C. And we have definitely been smoking something strong.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

December 14, 2015, 6:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by willb01

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Don Monfort

$

0

0

No, it means the models have been right for the last 30-year trend, and will continue to be right for the next 30-year trend.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by willb01

December 14, 2015, 6:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by catweazle666

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

$

0

0

What about the overlapping thirty-year period that started 15 years ago? Will the models accurately predict that thirty-year trend?

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by catweazle666

December 14, 2015, 6:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by -1=e^iπ

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by willb01

$

0

0

Jim D: “No, it means the models have been right for the last 30-year trend, and will continue to be right for the next 30-year trend.”

Utter drivel.

Stop making stuff up.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by -1=e^iπ

December 14, 2015, 6:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by -1=e^iπ

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by catweazle666

$

0

0

@ Richard –
“I would apply the precautionary principal and wait for data to lower the uncertainty before taking unwise action.”

How does the precautionary principal imply no action as opposed to action to avoid the uncertainty about future climate change? What version of the precautionary principle are you referring to? The strong precautionary principal?

Expected social welfare maximization is a better basis for decision making.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by -1=e^iπ

December 14, 2015, 6:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by cerescokid

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by -1=e^iπ

$

0

0

Woops. Misspelled principle with principal.

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by cerescokid

December 14, 2015, 6:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by -1=e^iπ

$

0

0

ATTP
Believing in the scientific method and a drop in ECS are not consistent.

In every decade in every field, scientists have discredited theories of the past. Hubris is endemic in climate science, which in turn hampers further investigation into what is really happening.

Your statement belongs in a time capsule to be opened in 2100 and used as prima facie evidence for what was wrong with climate science in 2015. I hate to break it to you but you don’t have a monopoly on knowledge.

---

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

December 14, 2015, 6:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Paris: impacts? by Ronnie Nelson

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by cerescokid

$

0

0

EdFabMax:
http://tinyurl.com/RCP-8-5

4 Discussion and conclusions
RCP8.5 depicts, compared to the scenario literature, a high-emission business as usual scenario. Its socio-economic development pathway is characterized by slow rates of economic development with limited convergence across regions, a rapidly rising population to comparatively high levels, and relatively slow pace of technological change. The latter assumption is reflected also by the scenario’s modest improvement rates of energy intensity, which drives energy demand towards the high end of the scenario literature. The primary energy mix of RCP8.5 is dominated by fossil fuels, leading to the extraction of large amounts of unconventional hydrocarbon resources well beyond presently extractable reserves.

It requires technological advances to produce unconventional fossil fuel reserves currently unreachable, which is the same arm-waving geologists have been doing for the past 30-years of fears of peak oil.

Comment on Paris: impacts? by Ronnie Nelson

December 14, 2015, 6:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

$

0

0

Yes, the academics of climate change have come to a conclusion with the 34page resolution set forth by The UNFCCC COP21/CMP11. The next phase is to engineer a solution. Since CC is universally accepted by the functionaries to be a clear and present threat to all governments of the world it seems reasonable to assign the most capable and well funded agency on the planet to take control: The United States Department of Defense, led by the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the civilian authority of POTUS. Obviously, with so much in the science of contemporary Neo-orthodox climatology a proprietary secret one will expect a major roll for the CIA and associate covert operations. Come on folks …let’s get ‘er done!

Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

December 14, 2015, 6:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Paris: impacts? by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Paris: impacts? by Ronnie Nelson

$

0

0

ATTP: I don’t think you can believe in the actual scientific method AND believe that ECS is an actual metric of climate. That isn’t really a consistent position.

Comment on Paris: impacts? by beththeserf

December 14, 2015, 7:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by Brian White

≪ Previous: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

$

0

0

1.5 degrees target; symbolism over substance – Bjorn
Lomberg:

‘The temperature effects of the Paris climate promises for
2016-2030 from the world’s governments will be rises just
0.05°C (0.09°F) lower than they would have been by 2100.
The cost for the Paris climate treaty to achieve just that
is at least 1 trillion euro a year by 2030; even just trying
to embrace a target of 1.5°C would be ruinously expensive.’

Neanmoins, rien, rien … nous ne regrettons rien!

Comment on Open thread by Brian White

December 14, 2015, 7:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Paris: impacts? by beththeserf

$

0

0

Would you like to comment on this? New? theory about how clouds are moved. My revised, Are clouds pulling the weather fronts along a little? Post on “science on google + has 41 plusses and 2 shares now. What I suggest is that precipitating clouds actually pull weather fronts along a bit. Of course the wind pushed the fronts, but I think the clouds contribute too! Here is the most explanatory diagram I have made so far. https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipMorywndhj3pPQScjrEE32PC2Q31tbcwICd5nY/photo/AF1QipP9Uozu6ogIUmVPqPQ0y4Kt5-WmMz8C9uNx-Cs