CC, Got back home a couple days ago. First time I have been able to get on the computer to do input is today. Was having some health problems when we last debated back in early October, if I remember correctly. I need to apologize for taking short cuts and not checking my data. If memory serves me, I got Dr. Moon and not Dr. Soon confused. Very sorry for that and I apologize for the mistake. Remember being in a lot of pain at the time and just wanting to finish the debate and other bookwork because of the need to travel to get more logical medical opinions than what I was receiving in my neck of the woods. Ended up in Beverly Hills and the Cedars-Sinai Hospital for over a month. Suppose to be at a recovery center right now. But I needed to come back to the farm and if I can get some strength back I will try and stay out of the recovery center altogether.
As far as the climate change. Not much has happened. In the news the UN climate talks ended with little progress. They worked on carbon credits and sent money to poorer countries. Looks more like globalization than science. Thank god for Trump’s actions. We don’t need other countries taxing us considering the latest statistics are showing that over the last century the global population has quadrupled and there has been a 99% decline in the death toll from natural disasters. Global weather losses affecting GDP show a 30% decline since 1990. The IPCC has lowered the sea level rise to 0.6 meters by 2100. Crops yields continue to increase globally, and extreme poverty has declined from 36% in 1990 to 10% in 2015. The weather is doing what was predicted by GSM affects by our scientists over a decade ago. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how much the planet will warm in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide – referred to as ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS). The lower end of the range of ECS is not covered by the climate models, resulting in temperature projections for the 21st century that are biased high, with a smaller range relative to the range of uncertainty in ECS.
The question of a public debate of scientific facts by the political parties doesn’t look good. The Climate Change elite is going to stick with RCP8.5 hypothesis along with hiding behind teenagers and children. The desire to separate Global Warming from Climate Change doesn’t fit the political motives.
Paper by Dr. Tim Palmer of Oxford University, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/11/26/1906691116.full.pdf
“The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science.”
CC, we have people like Dr. Palmer speaking out, but is anybody listening?
A step in the right direction. “Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies and increase access to grid electricity, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.” – Dr. Judith Curry
Lausten - like telling a kid to stay out of that room. 