Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet

[Moviefan-2]

To put this in perspective, once again:

A temperature increase of 1 degree C would be nowhere near an increase of 6 degrees C, or 4 degrees C for that matter.

There's only one explanation for this dramatic shifting of the goal posts -- the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

OMG!!!

You honestly believe that the "pre-industrial age" refers to 1990?? :Eek:

You might want to take another look at your CBC story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/temperatures-one-degree-celsius-1.3310733). I would say you've just broken your own record for the stupidest thing ever posted on TERB.

The IPCC worst case projections are for a median of 4ºC over one hundred years from a baseline of 1850-1900 years, I recall from memory.
We are now 1/4 of the way there through one quarter of the projection time period, in a projection that is not linear but exponential.
If you wanted to look specifically at the changes only through the last 25 years we've add about 0.5-0.6ºC global temperature anomaly.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The IPCC worst case projections are for a median of 4ºC over one hundred years from a baseline of 1850-1900 years, I recall from memory.

Nope. The "worst case" predictions in 2001 were for an increase of almost 6ºC (rightly or wrongly, the IPCC made "worst-case" predictions based on the top range of the computer models):

The UN group reported yesterday in Shanghai that, in the worst case, the average temperature could rise by 5.8C this century, 2C higher than their original predictions.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jan/23/globalwarming.climatechange2

If you wanted to look specifically at the changes only through the last 25 years we've add about 0.5-0.6ºC global temperature anomaly.

I think your numbers are on the high said, but even if we assume that you're correct, that trend would only represent about half of your 4ºC median average.

Even worse, it is only one-third of the dire 6ºC prediction the IPCC made in 2001.

As for your latest alarmism about a 1ºC increase, that is just one-sixth of what the IPCC was threatening a mere 14 years ago.

(By the way, what happened to your claim that the "pre-industrial age" refers to 1990? :biggrin1

 

[red]

economists! I will start listening to economists on the effect of anything on sex when the first one gets laid

 

[PornAddict]

OMG!!!

You honestly believe that the "pre-industrial age" refers to 1990?? :Eek:

You might want to take another look at your CBC story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/temperatures-one-degree-celsius-1.3310733). I would say you've just broken your own record for the stupidest thing ever posted on TERB.

Moviefan I cannot believe what frankfooters posted also!

I don't know whether to laugh at Frankfooter or pity Frankfooter...gosh these leftwing pinko winko global warming alarmists need their head to be examined!
PS Frankfooter, need to change your terb handle from Frankfooter to "Chicken Little".

 

[FAST]

Moviefan I cannot believe what frankfooters posted also!

I don't know whether to laugh at Frankfooter or pity Frankfooter...gosh these leftwing pinko winko global warming alarmists need their head to be examined!
PS Frankfooter, need to change your terb handle from Frankfooter to "Chicken Little".

And he still will never acknowledge the steep rise in his graph from 1910 thru 1945,...THEN a decline for another 30 years,...all with absolutely no explanation from the UNEMPLOYABLEs and frankee.

And will never respond to the much larger effects of methane, as a green house gas than man made CO2,...plus the effects of deforestation,...

Of coarse we all know why those facts will never be brought up by the this bunch of self proclaimed experts,...their jobs depend on never having to acknowledge natural and other causes of the so called global warming,...or is it climate change,...its hard to keep track..

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Nope. The "worst case" predictions in 2001 were for an increase of almost 6ºC (rightly or wrongly, the IPCC made "worst-case" predictions based on the top range of the computer models):

That was the upper range of the worst case scenario.
Median of the worst case scenario was about 4ºC.

 

[Frankfooter]

And he still will never acknowledge the steep rise in his graph from 1910 thru 1945,...THEN a decline for another 30 years,...all with absolutely no explanation from the UNEMPLOYABLEs and frankee.

Dealt with months ago.

And will never respond to the much larger effects of methane, as a green house gas than man made CO2,...plus the effects of deforestation,...

I gave you the link to the IPCC paper that dealt with it.
Don't blame me if you can't read it.

I thought you ran away squirming after you refused to tell us what this 'ulterior motive' is for your claim that climatologists are committing mass fraud.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That was the upper range of the worst case scenario.
Median of the worst case scenario was about 4ºC.

In fact, the median for the full range of projections (not the "worst case") was 3.6ºC. The numbers you cited confirm that the actual temperatures were nowhere near that prediction.

Never mind the fact that it was the IPCC that chose to focus on the worst-case scenario in 2001.

The predictions were spectacularly wrong.

(And we're still waiting for an explanation of how the "pre-industrial age" started in 1990.)

 

[Frankfooter]

In fact, the median for the full range of projections (not the "worst case") was 3.6ºC. The numbers you cited confirm that the actual temperatures were nowhere near that prediction.

I'm going by memory here, don't have enough time to do your research for you today.

Go ahead and give us the link on the different scenarios and their ranges and show us what the real median of the worst case scenario was.
Then we can look at why your claims are always 'spectacularly wrong'.

Meanwhile, the CBC has reported that the G20 countries spend $450 billion per year on subsidies for fossil fuel.
Imagine who much will get done when that money goes to green energy, green sources are already almost at par.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies-450b-1.3314291

 

[Moviefan-2]

Go ahead and give us the link on the different scenarios and their ranges and show us what the real median of the worst case scenario was.

I said the IPCC produced a "real median of the worst case scenario"??

I said no such thing. That was your claim, not mine. I can't even begin to imagine why you think I should produce a source to confirm your claims.

By the way, I still haven't seen any explanation for your conclusion that the "pre-industrial age" referred to 1990. I would love to see your source for that one. Or were you "going by memory"? :thumb:

 

[FAST]

Dealt with months ago.

My post,...the steep rise in his graph from 1910 thru 1945,...THEN a decline for another 30 year
And your reply,... "it was dealt with months ago",...

That is absolute utter BULL SHIT

The ONLY reply you have EVER made after numerous challenges,...was that I was "cherry picking" 75 years.

I gave you the link to the IPCC paper that dealt with it.
Don't blame me if you can't read it.

I can read you like a book,...an its fictional,...I have challenged you to cut and past any mention of methane gas being 20 to 37 time more effective as a green house gas than man made CO2, plus no mention about the effects of deforestation.
You obviously have NOT read your own bull shit,...and you expect me to waste my time on your bull shit,...???

I thought you ran away squirming after you refused to tell us what this 'ulterior motive' is for your claim that climatologists are committing mass fraud.

I never run away,...that's your well known trait.
But I keep on forgetting you are rather simple minded,...so I will try to simplify this for you,...the motive is simply to retain employment,...what the hell don't understand about that.
And once again,...it is NOT en mass,...but simply a few clubs of THE UNEMPLOYABLE.


FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

I said the IPCC produced a "real median of the worst case scenario"??

I said no such thing. That was your claim, not mine. I can't even begin to imagine why you think I should produce a source to confirm your claims.

By the way, I still haven't seen any explanation for your conclusion that the "pre-industrial age" referred to 1990. I would love to see your source for that one. Or were you "going by memory"? :thumb:

It was your claim that the only metric for the IPCC was the projection for the extreme worst case range.
I was just noting that its a stupid metric.

As for this 'pre-industrial' business, knock your socks off.
You just put two and two together and claimed it was five.


Today's news, a glacier in Greenland has broken loose from its bedrock and is floating free, moving towards the ocean.
That one glacier, with billions of tonnes of ice, could raise the world's oceans by 50cm.

You going to tell us that's happened before, its not happening, its a conspiracy, or that you have the word of some kook that wrote an opinion piece that says its all fine?
Which one this time?

 

[Frankfooter]

The ONLY reply you have EVER made after numerous challenges,...was that I was "cherry picking" 75 years.

And here I was thinking you were really stupid and couldn't pick up anything.

I can read you like a book,...an its fictional,...I have challenged you to cut and past any mention of methane gas being 20 to 37 time more effective as a green house gas than man made CO2, plus no mention about the effects of deforestation.
You obviously have NOT read your own bull shit,...and you expect me to waste my time on your bull shit,...???

Then again, maybe you are that stupid.
The information you want is right here:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf

If you're not smart enough to find it in that paper, you're not smart enough to understand the answer and you're not smart enough to take part in this discussion.

the motive is simply to retain employment,..

That's really fucking stupid.
So you now claim that 97% of climatologists are faking results in order to 'keep their jobs'.
Which means you think that the conspiracy has to include not only 97% of climatologists over decades of research, but their employers, who are largely government funded agencies.
Now your conspiracy is so big it includes thousands of scientists, over decades, from over 100 countries and the governments of over 100 countries in the world.

And the ones to pick this out are a plucky band of billionaire oil tycoons and their hired lobbyists?


Its settled, you are just really fucking stupid.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It was your claim that the only metric for the IPCC was the projection for the extreme worst case range.
I was just noting that its a stupid metric.

Actually, what I said was that the IPCC chose in 2001 to focus on the worst-case scenario. I provided a link to the article in the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jan/23/globalwarming.climatechange2

To be fair to the Guardian, other press reports from that time period confirm the same thing. And I agree that the IPCC's decision to emphasize a possible temperature increase of almost 6ºC was "stupid."

 

[Moviefan-2]

As for this 'pre-industrial' business, knock your socks off.
You just put two and two together and claimed it was five.

What??

The CBC story you posted said the Earth's temperature has increased 1ºC from the "pre-industrial age," which you said represents a 1ºC increase over "25 years (1990 - 2015)": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

You genuinely believe that 1990 was the pre-industrial age??? :Eek:

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, what I said was that the IPCC chose in 2001 to focus on the worst-case scenario. I provided a link to the article in the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jan/23/globalwarming.climatechange2

To be fair to the Guardian, other press reports from that time period confirm the same thing. And I agree that the IPCC's decision to emphasize a possible temperature increase of almost 6ºC was "stupid."

That article focused on the worst-case scenario.
That's not the report.

 

[Frankfooter]

What??

The CBC story you posted said the Earth's temperature has increased 1ºC from the "pre-industrial age," which you said represents a 1ºC increase over "25 years (1990 - 2015)": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

You genuinely believe that 1990 was the pre-industrial age??? :Eek:

Don't be ridiculous, of course I don't think 1990 was the pre-industrial age.

The CBC article used the 1850-1900 average as their base for the 1ºC change.

But different dates are used constantly, like the Met which I seem to recall used the 1980's (this is by memory, don't hold me to it).
The IPCC worst case scenario (again I'm going by memory, go ahead and correct me) had a range of around 2º-6º, I seem to recall, with a median of around 4ºC, based off of those same 'pre-industrial' dates. We are now roughly one quarter into the 100 year projections from the earlier IPCC report, 1990 I seem to recall. The IPCC made their 100 year projection first in 1990, though it included the head start of increase in first half of the 20th century.

Regardless, we've raised the surface temp of the planet by 1ºC so far, and its already giving us big changes.
Now that we've also hit 400ppm CO2, we're going to raise it further.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Don't be ridiculous, of course I don't think 1990 was the pre-industrial age.

The CBC article used the 1850-1900 average as their base for the 1ºC change.

And yet ....

1ºC = 1/4 of 4ºC (median worst case scenario).
25 years (1990-2015) = 1/4 of the 100 year projection timeline.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

The 1ºC increase was over a period of about 135 years, not 25 years.

The real lesson here is that you just cut and paste things that you don't understand.

 

[Frankfooter]

And yet ....



https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

The 1ºC increase was over a period of about 135 years, not 25 years.

The real lesson here is that you just cut and paste things that you don't understand.

No, I make the occasional mistake, that's all.

The met uses 1960-1990 average as their base, and they have the global anomaly since then as around 0.6ºC, which again is close to the quarter mark for the 100 year projection.

That's pretty close for our arguments, and pretty close to my initial argument.