PeterMP

The conservation (and I am going to use conservation here instead of environmental because I think that is the key issue here, actually) movement in the US has been hurt by the lack of fragmentation of the US political system. We have a strong two party system where the priorities are set by a few in power by each party. And its pretty clear now that Obama doesn't have a strong commitment to conservation ideals. And you can see that through both is words and actions. He's done very little (even talking, especially talking with passion) to move conservation ideals forward. Even somebody like Al Gore who seemed to at least understand the environmental issues and importance did very little in terms of embracing conservation ideals. And I don't think that's going to change any time soon. There is nobody that appears to be rising in the Democratic party that appears to be passionate and strongly embrace concepts related to conservation. Our society and country has embraced consumption as both a societal and economic philosophy, and that includes the leadership of both parties. Even from an environmental issue stand point, the only question is how to best address them in the context of that consumption based system (and realistically in many cases it is going to be very difficult if not impossible in the near future at least). And there hasn't been a major political figure to speak against it since Jimmy Carter. And I think that's a shame. Given the combination of foreign policy, economic, and environmental problems we face, I think you can make a strong argument for a general conservative/conservation policy/ideals. Realistically, I think it is more likely that the next leader in the US to embrace conservation ideals will come from the "right" through the Evangelical/Catholic community, then the Democratic party. Of course none of that has any real impact on the science.

I just want to point out the reason that NASA got heavily involved in Earth based research is because so much of the data became satellite related, and as the organization that for the most part approved and carried out launches and even designed satellites, it isn't surprising that they became connected to the data generated by those satellites. I don't think there's any particular reason why NASA should be involved in Earth based research. I do think NASA at some level has strayed from their purpose, and I have no issue with hedging them back into that original purpose and focus. Mission creep and lack of focus is a real problem, especially in government. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study the Earth and use satellites to do it. It does mean that we'd have to have some sort of better inter-"agency" (I'm not sure the thing(s) we would task to study the Earth would be agencies) communication/cooperation, and/or another mechanism to build, design, launch, and monitor satellites.

If he stays healthy, Noel is going to be a better player than Camby. He is going to be able to legitimately guard 1-5 many nights in a manner that Camby never could. Even given that, unless offense drastically improves he's going to have to find just the right fit to reach his maximum value and if Embiid is healthy that isn't likely the Sixers. I wouldn't be shocked if he gets traded (and that goes from up to the draft this year through to up to next years draft). Beyond making his shot what sets Noah apart is his ability to pass. Noah is more than a willing passer, he's a gifted passer. Over the last several seasons, he's making like 20% of his teams assists with a 2:1 assists:TO ratio. Camby didn't have that type of ability, and I doubt Noel will. Whoever were Noel's coaches growing up and even in high school should be banned from coaching kids. They did him a real disservice. It isn't even he's a blank slate. It is worse than that. If there's a bad thing you can do in terms of having the ball in your hand as an offensive player, he does it. **EDIT** The upside for Noel is he's still young, and he at least appears to be willing to work hard. I'd not be shocked if he puts together a useful NBA offensive repertoire.

People die from heat waves too and from parasites and other things that live especially in tropical climates. Hotter temperatures don't mean more solar energy for solar panels. It also doesn't mean longer growing seasons in many cases. Hotter temperatures does not mean more sun light in the context of CO2 induced climate change. Us adding CO2 to the atmosphere isn't going to increase the amount of sun light coming into the Earth. Hotter temperatures mean more water held in the atmosphere. I don't think (and certainly know) that correlates to more rain. In addition, there will be more ocean so more of the area will be water. Why wouldn't that more rain come down on the larger ocean? 5 might actually be right. Are you going to help move the people and put in the new infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc)? What's the costs? Hotter also means killing things that live in more temperate water, especially with the increased CO2 and related drop in the pH. (I've said before, I think long term climate change being good or bad is a coin flip at a total population level. Changes in precipitation patterns is going to be key. If rain moves from falling over fertile areas moves to the Sahara, you are still going to have a very hard time (or expensive) growing crops. Short term and for the US, things are different. If somebody wants to tell me they don't really care about the US or short term costs, I can see the argument for just letting it happen.)

You know what else happens, CO2 absorbs energy that would have otherwise escaped into space. And we can put pretty good numbers on how much those other things affect things like sea level, especially at global level and there seems to be a good bit of things happening that aren't explained by those other things.

And sea levels and ice melting aren't? I can find you plenty of things, even in the popular press, that talk about sea levels increasing faster than expected and Arctic sea ice melting faster than expected. They all go hand in hand, and I think at some level, it is pretty clear that IF the models are actually under estimating surface temperatures it is because at least some that energy is going to melting sea ice and raising sea levels. But when skeptics talk about the models being wrong it is only in the direction of temperatures being over estimated. It is never pointed out that there are reasons to believe that the models are under estimating affects. The bias is odd (well it isn't really. If they didn't have preconceived agendas in most cases the bias would be odd).

If I drop a 10 g plate, I predict that it will hit the ground with a force of 98 m*g/sec^2 Science tells me that force = mass*acceleration and acceleration due Earth's gravity is ~9.8 m/sec^2 Science tells me that distance = vi*time+acceleration*time^2/2 So if I let my plate go from 1 m (vi = 0), I predict that it will take 0.45 seconds to hit the ground. Those are predictions based on science (and I'll point out that they are even based on physical science (and not statistics whether you regard statistics as a science or not)). That's what climate models are doing at a more complex level. They are making predictions based on physical science observations of the components of the system and of the system itself. They are doing at a much more complex level, but they are models based on physics that we use to make predictions. I wanted to try the graphic of the models from another source since the last one didn't take: Hadcrut 4 is the lowest of the temperature data sets so this is being as unkind to the models as possible. If you take the "actual" temperature determined by the Hadcrut 4, it is with in the 95-5% window of the models currently. Now, there is an uncertainty with the Hadcrut 4 and the lower bound of what the actual temperature could be is outside of that lower bound for the 95-5% window. But that's the lower bound and some models are outside of the 95-5% window (just under 5% of them are). And so some models (the lowest gray line) are actually lower than the lower bound of the Hadcrut 4. If we take the temperature series that is the lowest and say what is lowest value it could be some models are below that. Now if you take what the IPCC says is the lower bound for possible temperature increases (making assumptions about CO2 output), it is even lower than that. The IPCC is currently predicting a possible lower bound for temperature increases lower than the lowest model even though the current temperate doesn't support that. Now, in their last report the IPCC lowered their lower bound (the red line in the graph above represents the new lower bound) and partly because of research and criticisms like this: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf This guy said that he thinks the IPCC's old estimate was off by 1/3 for climate sensitivity (the amount temps will increase for doubling of CO2). (The IPCC gave the "likely range" between 2.5-4.5 with a best estimate of 3 in 2007. In 2014, they've lowered the lower bound to the "likely range" to 1.5 so they are now saying 1.5-4.5.) Now, the paper I posted above is still lower than the new likely range (it puts it at 1.1). The IPCC lower bound is lower than the models lowest bound. The IPCC is saying it is possible that all of the model are wrong because they are over predicting the temperature even though there is currently no evidence to believe that's the case because even the lowest temperature data set is likely to be within in the 95-5% window of the models and is higher than some of the models predict. But I've posted a piece that says even that lowest lower bound by the IPCC is too low. The guy that wrote that is saying that something that says that even the lowest model that is running too hot is to high. But what's he say about the future if we do nothing: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html "I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years." Scientists aren't sure exactly what such a change in temperature could bring, but one of the "big possible consequences" is an increase in sea level, Mr. Schwartz said. "It's not out of the question that the ice sheet on Greenland could melt, and the consequence of that is the sea level would rise," he said. "The shoreline on Long Island would move inland by two to three miles." "Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he's worried. He believes climate change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs "in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars."" http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NationalPost.html And that's from a guy that essentially thinks EVERY models is over estimating future temperature increases (even though that doesn't appear to be the case), and the IPCC lower bound, which is lower than the lowest model, is too high. Now, the odd thing is you've come in here and made pretty definitive deceleration, do you think it odd that you've made those statements without what appears to be a pretty basic understanding of the real situation?

Nobody is claiming that the models are perfect, but to claim they aren't based on science is laughable. They don't have every possible detail, especially details we are just uncovering incorporated into them. But they are still based on science. I'm going to give some information on the lead author of the actually published paper that the blog is based on: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/ipcc-still-really-really-sure-were-causing-climate-change-0 "The actual conclusions of this report don't diverge a whole lot from the previous assessments. It "represented more of a refinement," according to Graeme Stephens, Director of the Center for Climate Sciences at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Stephens was a lead author, a contributing author and an expert reviewer on three different chapters within the assessment. "The conclusions fundamentally are, the planet is warming," he tells Popular Science. Many of the changes between this assessment and the last one, published in 2007, have to do with refining the models used to predict climate change outcomes." Yes, that's right. He's a major contributor to the IPCC reports. The guy whose work you are citing to essentially claim that climate change isn't an issue is an important member of the organization putting together reports that are saying that is a problem, and we very very likely causing (much) of the warming. The IPCC is a big group of people even, but we can look at groups within it that he is more closely associated with within the IPCC. He's a lead author of a group that wrote: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf "It is unequivocal that anthropogenic increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) have substantially enhanced the greenhouse effect, and the resulting forcing continues to increase. Aerosols partially offset the forcing of the WMGHGs and dominate the uncertainty associated with the total anthropogenic driving of climate change." The physics of CO2 warming are relatively simple and well understood, and we essentially know the Earth can get warmer because it has been warmer in the past. Your also wrong. Some of the models do accurately predict the global temperature. Some (not many) are even UNDER predicting temperature increases (Hadcrut is actual surface temperature data, UAH is lower tropospheric temperature from satellites (actual measurements)): And as I've already stated, yes, they are (generally) over predicting temperature, but they are also (generally) under predicting Arctic sea ice melting and sea level changes. Why focus on temperatures?

The storms came before late spring. "The recent wave of storms to hit California is being related to El Niño conditions. The National Weather Service long-range forecast has the wet pattern continuing through March. The storms could help California reach its monthly moisture average by the end of this week. Forecasters say next week will bring a break in the storms, but the National Weather Service forecasts wet weather in California from now through March." http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jan/20/its-official-el-nino-california/ That's Jan 2010. And yes then we immediately flipped back over to La Nina and a new drought started and that's where we stand today. And when you start to appeal to 2007, that isn't generally considered El Nino year. We have to start getting into a little more detail related to the original point. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/history.html For example, there was a (weak) El Nino in 2006, but by the end of 2006, it was ending and by the end of 2007, we're in a La Nina. And the La Nina was stronger than the El Nino. But rain falls were reasonable in 2006 (the drought starts in 2007), and yes there was a period of time in 2007 when ENSO existed. http://blog.sfgate.com/gleick/2011/06/16/the-california-drought-2007-2009-myth-versus-reality/ "Crop yields remained high throughout the drought period, only dropping below 2006 levels (a wet year) once and for a single crop category (field and seed crops) in the last year of the drought." But temperatures in 2007 also weren't very high because the ENSO like-El Nino conditions were weak, and it was also partially dominated by a La Nina. El Nino conditions that cause significant increases in temperature cause rains in CA. (and realistically, that was actually your original point. You've actually flipped your argument.) If you want to call every case where the ENSO is positive an El Nino, then yes you can find cases of drought in CA in which there is an El Nino. But that isn't typical and it counter acts your original point. If every case in which the ENSO goes positive is an El Nino, then El Nino's are still awful predictors because they don't even predict warm temperatures. You really are arguing to argue now without even trying to be accurate or make a logical argument with respect to your points. I'm done with this.

A spike of what? Global surface temperatures in 2014 were warmer than any El Nino year on record. "Late spring storms smothered the Sierra in snow. The state's biggest reservoir is nearly full. Precipitation across much of California has been above average. By standard measures, California's three-year drought is over. "From a hydrologic standpoint, for most of California, it is gone," said state hydrologist Maury Roos, who has monitored the ups and downs of the state's water for 50 years." "Data from the state Department of Water Resources paint a vastly improved water picture. As of May 31, statewide precipitation was at 115% of average, reservoir storage was at 95% and runoff at 80%." http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/20/local/la-me-water-drought-20100620 That's from June of 2010. If it isn't unusual, want to take another try? I don't even know why I bothered to respond. I think you've said one right thing in this thread the whole time, and it isn't like you are going to change your mind. But that was just so wrong I couldn't pass it up.

The IPCC report. That doesn't really mean that this drought would be occurring if CO2 levels were less than 320 ppm. And let's be clear the drought was actually PREDICTED by some climate scientists tied to things that result from CO2 induced warming (e.g. decreased Arctic sea ice). http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/07/3370481/california-drought/ Now, I'm not saying that's proof that the CO2 induced climate change is causing the drought, but I do find it odd that your so quick to dismiss it. (And I didn't originally bring up the CA drought to make a statement about climate change just to point out how observed conditions don't match up with the idea that El Ninos are good predictors of climate). You said they hadn't gotten a single thing right. Which was false because they've gotten lot's of things right. Every single thing that I know of that the models said would change significantly in 1988 have. Every one. 2014 was the warmest surface year on record. Warmer than any "spike" from a El Nino year. We have 50-80 years to go until what? Based on the last 30 years, climate models ARE TODAY RIGHT NOW out performing your El Nino hypothesis, and it isn't even close. When was the last time there was any kind of El Nino and CA was in a drought? Realistically, I think I'm done here. Like I said to your first post, it is like having a conversation about the origin of the universe with somebody that at least claims to reject the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

Precip is going up and faster than projections. Globally. Back to talking about weather? The "increased" value after "cool" summers is just over 5 million km^2 (that's the Sept 2014 number), which is still well below the projections. What you're ignoring is the impact of the CHANGE on human civilization and the costs of dealing with it. It isn't better for the US or the human population as a whole if there are large scale changes in precipitation patterns. If areas that are currently heavily populated have significant increases in drought, it isn't going to be good and dealing with it is going to be very expensive. Which is how you ended up trying to make the ridiculous argument that CO2 induced warming is equivalent to El Nino affects. The fact of the matter is that we don't know if the drought in CA is part of a normal weather cycle or not. It is possible it is, and it is possible it is not. Especially if we you are going to argue that the models aren't any good, it is possible if CO2 levels were 320 ppm, there may or may not be a drought currently in CA. Any other argument is dishonest. You did. You said: "Our current best guess as to what will happen if we see extreme warming comes from east-based El Nino events and...droughts aren't the U.S.'s problem." That's equating the two. We are seeing extreme (surface) warming. 2014 was warmer than any El Nino year on record and guess what drought is a problem in parts of the US. And no El Ninos are not the closest hints we have. They aren't the best guess. The models are doing a much better job of predicting what the results are going to be than El Ninos. And it isn't even close. The climate models say that you can see CO2 induced warming that generates really warm years (globally) AND have a CA drought. El Ninos don't. Climate models say that you have the warmest year for surface temperatures and not a huge spike in troposphere temperatures. The history of El Ninos doesn't.

Wait, I thought we were going to spend to protect value: "Ya spend to protect value and allow nature to claim the rest( raising Galveston, or dikes ect)" There wasn't any OR. Does the infrastructure in the East Coast not represent value now? Come on! We got value. We are want to protect it. Do we assume the models are right to do it?

I'm pointing out your awful logic, which ties into the point that I made to your initial post. You either have no clue what you're talking about and don't care and will willingly spout garbage like you do. Understand what you are saying and are flat out willing to lie. Or have some idea on the topic, but have other strongly held beliefs that aren't consistent with the information and that distorts your understanding of the information. Arguments based on the models being wrong in one area because they are right in another area is evidence of one of those 3 things. This is vague enough that it doesn't matter. Mostly because off by decades could be off as coming sooner than the models state or coming later than models state. But your arguments aren't really based on their being a possibility that things will come faster than expected or be worse than expected. And if the models mis-estimated in only one direction, your argument might be right. But as I've already pointed out that isn't the case. Yes surface temperatures are trailing projections, but precipitation and Arctic sea ice melting are going faster than projections and sea level increases are at the very edge of projections. Looking at all of the data, there is a good as reason to believe that the models are under estimating the effects as over estimating them. Yet, you don't take that into account. You talk about unpredictable things happening to make the models wrong, but you only think about unpredictable things happening in terms making climate change not as bad as the models predict. But unpredictable things work both ways. Sometimes they make things better, but they can also make things worse. Because it contradicts your argument. Your argument is El Nino = rain in CA CO2 induced warming = El Nino so CO2 induced warming = rain in CA My question is then, where's the rain in CA? Because climate induced warming has certainly happened. At the surface level, 2014 was very very likely warmer than any El Nino year in history. CA rain hasn't happened because CO2 induced warming doesn't = El Nino and so CO2 warming does not equal CA rain. That doesn't mean though the drought is due to CO2 induced warming. It is just evidence that just because El Ninos bring rain to CO2 doesn't mean that CO2 induced warming will. They are different.

The models are wrong, except for when I make an argument that requires them to be right. That's your argument now? They're no good for predicting drought, but they're perfectly good for predicting El Ninos because arguments that the models are wrong about future drought require they be right about future El Ninos. Yeah, that's some great logic. Climate models aren't very good at predicting El Ninos. They aren't very good at predicting any regional climate event, but El Ninos are particularly difficult. The effect on warming on actual El Ninos is an open debate where El Ninos aren't just about warm water, but changes in temperature differentials between the water/water and water/air. Models and previous climate change events are much better predictors of climate change based on the data we have over the last 30 years, and the comparison isn't even close. I didn't say that the CA drought was caused by climate change. Try again. Sinking isn't only related to plate tectonics. Various land use issues also contribute to sinking (sort of like ice melting/building up on land causes sinking and rising). I thought you were going to tell us what the answers were.

The half life of methane is 7 years. Most of it is getting converted into CO2. CO2 has a much higher life time in the system. It might get dissolved in the ocean, but that normally just means another CO2 molecule gets forced out. And realistically, I don't think anybody wants to argue that dissolving more CO2 in the oceans is a solution. The half life of CO2 molecules in the total system is at least decades. "AGW schemes" can at least slow specific unidirectional climate change that has been happening for the last several years related to CO2 increases. When people talk about preventing climate change, they are talking about preventing a specific climate change. Plate tectonics aren't playing a major role in East Coast sea level changes I thought you were claiming to have solutions. The East Coast is sinking due to changes in climate, but related to things like currents that especially if we don't believe the models might change. http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/sea-rising-faster-east-coast-then-rest-globe What are we going to do, let the East Coast sink? Spend a bunch of money to protect it based on models that might be wrong because currents might change in unexpected ways? What to do? Oh, but we don't have to worry about it because the models under estimate the effects. Except for of course the very thing we're talking about, East Coast sea levels, for which they are actually leaning towards UNDER estimating the impact.

I don't know if they are contradictory, but they are ridiculous. But you're the only person talking about weather. You are using weather events to make statements about climate. Long term changes in precipitation, drought, etc. are all climate not weather. Other climate events almost certainly tell us more about climate changes than a weather event like El Nino. It MIGHT be another issue if the climate event was causing changes related to the weather event, but that's not the case. CA doesn't get more rain during El Nino's because the global temperature goes up. Most of the weather effects of El Nino's are not related to the increase in global temperature. Most of them are related to the specific warming of the water in a particular part of the ocean and the change in the differential between the air and water temperature in that area of the ocean. If X causes A and B that doesn't mean that A is caused by B. And again, we can see that El Nino's are different than the climate change signal. El Nino's cause troposphere warming in a manner that climate change isn't. If El Nino's were an actual good predictor of climate change, then they should have similar affects. Just look at what is happening in CA currently. We're having very warm years, but CA is in the middle of a really bad drought.

There's a lot of talk about the models and the models being wrong in this thread and in other places. Much of the talk is related to surface temperatures where the mean of the models are over estimating the surface temperatures so from that it looks like the mean of the models over exaggerate the effects of climate change (and note, it isn't all of the models, but the mean of the models). What gets less attention is that the mean of the models are underestimating Arctic sea ice melting and precipitation increases, and sea level increases are running at the upper edge of model predictions. The models aren't perfect, but people that act like the models only over exaggerate the effect of CO2 induced climate change are either ignorant or lying. There's as good of reasons to look at the data and think the models might be under estimating affects.

However, the problem becomes that all of your arguments are based on things being ACCURATE and PREDICTABLE. Your "prediction" is essentially that the models are inaccurate in specific direction. In directions that mean things won't be bad. You are arguing for an accurate prediction that doesn't agree with the models. Going back to the piece I posted on droughts, if models aren't accurate and don't take into account unpredictable things, then why isn't it a concern that the unpredictable things that make the models inaccurate result in the model to UNDER PREDICT the severity of future drought? Doesn't that still fit your ideas of models being inaccurate because of unpredictable things? But your arguments all ignore that possibility. That somebody would make those two comments in the same post is laughable. We can't look at previous warming periods, but we should look at pretty much unrelated El Nino's. El Nino's don't (greatly) affect the heat budget of the Earth system (this includes deep oceans), but primarily affect the distribution of heat in the system. They move heat from area to another. That is completely different than real warming events/processes that increase the heat budget of the whole system. The idea that you'd ignore other warming events in which the energy of the total system is increased for surface warming events that are completely different is odd at best. And we see that there is a difference. El Nino's cause significant warming of the troposphere in a manner that exceeds that of climate change global warming, and you can see that in the satellite data (that are measuring troposphere temperatures). The El Nino year's are all big peaks on a background of a general warming trend. Based on the satellite data, 1998 is still easiest the warmest year. It is also the year since the satellite data started with the strongest El Nino. In addition, El Nino's are single years. They warm (the surface) and then go away. There is no compounded affect of a general trend of warming over decades. There's no good reason to believe that El Nino's are a good model for CO2 induced climate change.

The problem with technological solutions to mitigation of climate change problems is that it is essentially a costs that has to be paid infinitely into the future. That gets expensive. In addition, there's the issue of just constant vigilance. It is easy to let the vigilance slip in terms of up keep and maintenance, and we saw what can happen with respect to New Orleans. The other issue is the East Coast is big. Where are you going to spend your money? Where it is sinking the fastest? What happens if in 20 years currents and sedimentation rates change, and it is no longer sinking (quickly) You put hundreds of millions of dollars into protecting NYC, and in 20 years, things change and it is Boston where sea levels actually raise the fastest. Or not even the East Coast, but the Great Lakes, and that's where you're having flooding issues. What happens if in 25 years it is clear your money could have been better spent in Chicago? Where are you going to put your money? And why? You got real solutions. Let's hear them. Are you going to trust regional climate models that are even worse than golobal climate models and don't even take into account all of the factors related to sea level rising (locally)? Why would you do that? Nobody's basing foreign policy on peak oil. Cheap oil is not the same as peak oil. Am I wrong? If I can find solutions to energy problems that decrease the world's dependence on oil coming from the Middle East (and today likely even Russia) am I not going to increase the quality of life for large numbers of future veterans and their families? Isn't that a worthwhile expenditure of funds that you are saying should go to quality of life improvements?

Methane is relatively quickly converted into CO2 on the surface and in the atmosphere. Is there anybody stopping people from collecting it and using it for fuel in most cases? I'm pretty sure the only answer is it economical in nature.

Given the complexity of issues related to sea levels (which we'already discussed), I find it odd that would be what you'd select to act on. What areas are you for doing things to protect with respect to sea levels, why those areas, and what are you prepared to do? I'll point out that moving from a fossil fuel related economy to a one less dependent on fossil fuels allows us shift our foreign and military policy that is currently related to securing (cheap) supplies of fossil fuels (for us and our allies). And when you look at all of the soldiers that have come home injured (physically and psychologically) from the recent wars and the families that have suffered from losses from the wars and have and are struggling, I can't help but think that actions that would help minimize CO2 production would be one of the best ways to POSITIVELY affect quality of life in the US currently as compared to the current state of things. (And if you try and insinuate the world's economy will run on geologically generated methane production (abiotic and/or biotic) again, I am going to laugh at you.)

Nobody is worried about oxygen concentrations (wrong country; wrong molecule). *EDIT* twa's point is one of magnitude not direction or target. With respect to bombs, the relevant analogy would be that one group is saying that you have to drop a certain number of bombs on the enemy to achieve the objective. While others are saying you have to drop 3X as many. The current Republican answer is to drop no bombs and not do anything else special to offset the fact that there aren't any bombs being dropped. (In the context of climate change, the Republicans are not putting forward a mitigation strategy.)

Certainly, everybody doesn't get killed that gets something wrong. Or none of us would be here. Given that, the "winner" in most cases is the person that gets the most things the most right. That's a curve. We didn't get everything right with respect to WWII, but we still came out way ahead of most other countries and were the winners because we got more right. That's a curve. We weren't graded vs. some objective scale. We were graded vs. those we were competing against. (and none of that should be taken to suggest what you've suggested about the models is factually correct just that your philosophical reasoning is even wrong.)

I had a long, point-by-point post essentially written, then I had to leave my computer, and when I came back it had issues restarting and so I lost it. While I was away, I thought about this a little bit though. In 1988, you could have thought about climate and made predictions. Let's take 3 variables- surface temperature, precipitation levels, and sea levels. You could make a prediction for all 3 of those, and at some level it is tempting to think they are all related and so you are only really making one prediction. However, we know there can be differences (see the plots from earlier in this thread that show that from 1940-1980 surface temperatures were down while the general trend for sea levels was up) so there is a degree of independence. Now, in 1988 climate models predicted that all 3 of those things would significantly increase, and they didn't just make predictions on those 3 variables. Climate models in 1988 predicted a whole host of variables would change in certain ways. To my knowledge, there isn't a case where the models have said this value will increase or decrease in a significant manner and were wrong. The models didn't just get ONE thing right (e.g. global surface temperature will significantly increase). They've gotten lot's of things right. Climate models have EASILY been better than the naive hypothesis (i.e. there will be no significant change), and it isn't even close. A person that can't recognize those facts: 1. is flat out lying 2. has issues recognizing what they don't know or understand. They are actually ignorant on the topic and don't know enough to realize it. 3. has more deeply held beliefs that get in the way of them admitting the basic truths of the situation. And the models we have today are clearly better than those in 1988. That isn't to say the models are perfect (which I've alluded to already in this thread). To try and have a more detailed conversation with somebody in one of those states would be like trying to have a conversation about the origin of the universe with somebody that at least claims to not accept the heliocentric nature of the solar system. Yes, I could launch into a lecture on the Big Bang, but realistically it wouldn't do any good.