Trump administration reports temps will rise 7 degrees by 2100

[GRTfast]

Evidence of what? What IS the evidence (information that is irrefutable to ALL, without the need of a Phd in Climatology, meteorology, geology etc.) that undisputably PROVES the existence of climate change? You can't SEE IT or FEEL or utilize any of the other senses to CONFIRM its existence. The ONLY "evidence" available is what OTHERS have TOLD us. The fact there are other, albeit far less prominent, counterarguments of climate change is "evidence" enough that this "science" is NOT settled.
I am likely not as "well versed" as you. I do understand the bullet point assertions. My question is, how could you possibly KNOW the models, processes AND any of the collected data used is/are accurate?

Ignorance isn't a valid argument against the evidence, processes, or conclusions. You are talking about thousands upon thousands of people's professions. It's not like you've gone out there, educated yourself to a high level, observed everything, and shown how it's all BS. You're basically saying "I'm not up to speed with the evidence, methods, and results, so I don't believe it". In order to do that, you have to rationalize the idea that the world's best and brightest, most rigorous and disciplined minds are all lying for cash.

As I've stated previously, a more than 90% of those in the science "community" are funded by the Federal Government. I cannot and will not speak to the motives of those in that "community". It would take an act of willful ignorance NOT to see the motives of those in the political sphere. On that basis along with the policy proposals which will have a MORE PROFOUND impact on our ALL of our lives than the "potential impact" if we do nothing, IT IS prudent to remain skeptical AND not only ask more questions, but ALSO to receive "answers" from OTHER sources...

The scientists by and large are not "in the political sphere". People don't become scientists (or engineers) to get rich. If you think they do, you are grossly misinformed.

Tell me Mr "not very well versed", how do you know what the severity will be if we do nothing? How do you weigh the impact of doing nothing vs the impact of doing something sensible when you admittedly don't understand the details of the topic?

If you built an engine for someone, and they came to you with it making some kind of noise, and you told them they need to tear it apart and do a full rebuild before they catastrophically fail a bunch of large expensive components, would they be justified in continuing to operate because they don't understand what is going on inside and engine, and they can't afford to pull it down at that moment? Would that be a smart decision on their part in the long run?

You respond with my query of the existence of this "evidence" with "ignorance is NOT a valid argument against evidence???

I'm ASKING YOU for PROOF of the veracity of the evidence!!! How am I being ignorant of it???

Even IF I were being IGNORANT, Asserting that position as such isn't evidence EITHER. It ONLY serves to disparage my position whilst dodging YOUR responsibility to ANSWER the question!

Also, thousands and thousands of people's lives work isn't EVIDENCE either. AND why exactly is it that I AM REQUIRED to do my own research to PERSONALLY DEBUNK this "evidence"?
Because I don't want to see people murdered, is it MY responsibility to stop ALL MURDER???

Stop continuing to mischaracterize my position by suggesting I'm ascribing nefarious motives to scientists!!! ~40~50 years ago a majority in the science community, EVERY ONE of which may have been as honest as nuns were asserting the "real" concerns
of "global cooling". Should we have been deferential to those in the science community then?

Certainly, science and technology has made exponential advancements since then. That's NOT a reason to BLINDLY accept the "evidence" of change.

Im sure Scientists and Engineers aren't trying to get rich, are you? I'm not... I'm sure interested in retaining employment..
I'm also sure they're not interested in doing WHAT they're doing for free...

How do I know what the severity will be if we do nothing? I don't. Asking ME obfuscates the fact that YOU DONT EITHER!!!

I am NOT a DENIER, I am skeptical and simply ASKING MORE QUESTIONS. I am interested in CORROBORATION from other NON-government funded entities. THATS IT, nothing more & nothing less...

If I built this engine you speak of that a customer is complaining is now making some kind of noise. I would attempt to remedy the problem by identifying it using the EASIEST and simplest solutions possible. I wouldn't just rip the engine out of the car and scatter the parts across my garage. AND I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T make pay my customer pay for doing so without EMPERICAL JUSTIFICATION for it...

From 6-7 posts ago:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201806

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Start there. Let me know what problems you have with those.

Here are a few more:

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... 745rXtKipo

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-k ... ate-change

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... arming.htm

[exhaustgases]

Its a proven fact that climate change is the religion of the left, a vehicle to control every one in every country of the earth with. And they hate it when it can be proven they are trying to change the weather to make their religion appear as truth. Simple stuff. The data is a skewed in their favor,
Ken has pointed that out many times. Demonrats don't care to see the real science, just the science that supports the lies.

[GRTfast]

~40~50 years ago a majority in the science community, EVERY ONE of which may have been as honest as nuns were asserting the "real" concerns
of "global cooling". Should we have been deferential to those in the science community then?

This is flat out incorrect. The notion that the consensus was a prediction of global cooling is just not true. The fact that you think it was speaks to the effectiveness of political propaganda and rhetoric. The fact is, only about 12% of the climate research papers/journal articles published up to the early 1980's predicted cooling (see table in the screen shot, full report provided as well). This is why it is important to dig past the surface and really search out the actual journals... do the research for yourself.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... BAMS2370.1

[GRTfast]

Its a proven fact that climate change is the religion of the left, a vehicle to control every one in every country of the earth with. And they hate it when it can be proven they are trying to change the weather to make their religion appear as truth. Simple stuff. The data is a skewed in their favor,
Ken has pointed that out many times. Demonrats don't care to see the real science, just the science that supports the lies.

[gmrocket]

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/trump-admi ... it-by-2100

From the link:

In a draft environmental impact statement, the Trump administration has projected that global temperatures will rise 7 degrees Fahrenheit (about 4 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century if nations fail to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, The Washington Post reported. The administration then used this projection to justify the President’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society,” Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for Climate Change Programs at the non-profit Climate Institute, told The Post. “And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it.”

The Obama-era standards, finalized after an agreement with automakers in 2012, would have required cars and light trucks built after 2020 to reach ambitious fuel efficiency targets — 41.7 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars by 2020, and 54.5 mpg by 2025. But the Trump administration’s 500-page draft environmental impact statement, issued last month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concludes that the standards would not have a significant enough impact on reducing global warming to be worth the added vehicle costs to consumers.

Reducing emissions sufficiently to curb climate change “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible,” the analysis concludes.

The report also projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million today to 789 ppm by 2100 — nearly triple the pre-industrial level.

i thought he was a bumbling fool and a liar? but he has this prediction right on the money and he should be believed?

i think he's a liar on this...so its just bs

[GRTfast]

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/trump-admi ... it-by-2100

From the link:

In a draft environmental impact statement, the Trump administration has projected that global temperatures will rise 7 degrees Fahrenheit (about 4 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century if nations fail to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, The Washington Post reported. The administration then used this projection to justify the President’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society,” Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for Climate Change Programs at the non-profit Climate Institute, told The Post. “And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it.”

The Obama-era standards, finalized after an agreement with automakers in 2012, would have required cars and light trucks built after 2020 to reach ambitious fuel efficiency targets — 41.7 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars by 2020, and 54.5 mpg by 2025. But the Trump administration’s 500-page draft environmental impact statement, issued last month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concludes that the standards would not have a significant enough impact on reducing global warming to be worth the added vehicle costs to consumers.

Reducing emissions sufficiently to curb climate change “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible,” the analysis concludes.

The report also projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million today to 789 ppm by 2100 — nearly triple the pre-industrial level.

i thought he was a bumbling fool and a liar? but he has this prediction right on the money and he should be believed?

i think he's a liar on this...so its just bs

Trump didn’t author one word of that report. Pay attention.

[86_regal]

~40~50 years ago a majority in the science community, EVERY ONE of which may have been as honest as nuns were asserting the "real" concerns
of "global cooling". Should we have been deferential to those in the science community then?

This is flat out incorrect. The notion that the consensus was a prediction of global cooling is just not true. The fact that you think it was speaks to the effectiveness of political propaganda and rhetoric. The fact is, only about 12% of the climate research papers/journal articles published up to the early 1980's predicted cooling (see table in the screen shot, full report provided as well). This is why it is important to dig past the surface and really search out the actual journals... do the research for yourself.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... BAMS2370.1

I'll concede the global cooling scare was NOT the prevailing concern in the scientific community in the 70's...

You've glossed over my more important point. Even AFTER having actually read a majority of the data from previous posts, I have no idea how to corroborate OR duplicate the findings of these papers AND NEITHER DO YOU!

To assert that the increases in man made CO2, aerosols, methane and other various greenhouse gase emissions having resulted in a 1.8*C global AIR temp increase, a .55*C ocean temp increase and a 17cm increase in ocean levels since 1880, the data used to collect it and the models used to predict future trends ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN an assertion of more frequent muffler bearing failures, reductions in headlight fluid service life and the increased likihood of whackaman failures using MY data and methodologies provided to someone who has LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE or exposure to an automobile!

With that said, how do you KNOW that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas? Have YOU physically DUPLICATED those findings?

How do YOU KNOW how much MAN MADE CO2 gas has been emitted to the atmosphere? HAVE YOU MEASURED IT?

Do you KNOW how much MORE greenhouse gases exist in the environment NOW THAN IN 1880? Did YOU PHYSICALLY COLLECT AND TREND THIS DATA.

IF CO2 concentrations HAVE increased AND have contributed to global increased temperatures, have YOU COLLECTED ice samples from the polar caps to quantify global CO2 concentrations over decades? Centuries? Millennia?

I'm NOT actually asking you to do any of this. I AM actually saying that since virtually ALL come up short of the means and resources to duplicate or "fact check" such findings, we're stuck with having to accept the data on faith..

I have no interest in MAJOR government energy policy legislation based on data that can only be accepted on faith...

[gmrocket]

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/trump-admi ... it-by-2100

From the link:

In a draft environmental impact statement, the Trump administration has projected that global temperatures will rise 7 degrees Fahrenheit (about 4 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century if nations fail to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, The Washington Post reported. The administration then used this projection to justify the President’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society,” Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for Climate Change Programs at the non-profit Climate Institute, told The Post. “And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it.”

The Obama-era standards, finalized after an agreement with automakers in 2012, would have required cars and light trucks built after 2020 to reach ambitious fuel efficiency targets — 41.7 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars by 2020, and 54.5 mpg by 2025. But the Trump administration’s 500-page draft environmental impact statement, issued last month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concludes that the standards would not have a significant enough impact on reducing global warming to be worth the added vehicle costs to consumers.

Reducing emissions sufficiently to curb climate change “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible,” the analysis concludes.

The report also projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million today to 789 ppm by 2100 — nearly triple the pre-industrial level.

i thought he was a bumbling fool and a liar? but he has this prediction right on the money and he should be believed?

i think he's a liar on this...so its just bs

Trump didn’t author one word of that report. Pay attention.

did you check the title on this thread? its starts out like this..Trump administration....

[86_regal]

i thought he was a bumbling fool and a liar? but he has this prediction right on the money and he should be believed?

i think he's a liar on this...so its just bs

Trump didn’t author one word of that report. Pay attention.

did you check the title on this thread? its starts out like this..Trump administration....

We're seeing this stuff for the same reason we DID NOT SEE an actual reduction in military spending under Obama or Clinton OR have seen NO reduction in government spending by any Republican president OR Congress in the past 50 years or NO discernible changes in "Trump-Care".

It's a power play... Always has been, always will be...

[GRTfast]

i thought he was a bumbling fool and a liar? but he has this prediction right on the money and he should be believed?

i think he's a liar on this...so its just bs

Trump didn’t author one word of that report. Pay attention.

did you check the title on this thread? its starts out like this..Trump administration....

Yeah, focus on the word administration. Do you think Trump wrote one word of that report?

[exhaustgases]

Climate change is the demonrat world control device. And is how you will be giving many things up to save the climate. Anyone care to list the things we have already given up to the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the world? And wish to name some climate change promoters that have not given up the things that they say is the cause of climate change? Its a wealthy mans lie to gain control over everyones lives.

[GRTfast]

I'll concede the global cooling scare was NOT the prevailing concern in the scientific community in the 70's...

Good, you're being reasonable. So far, I am finding you to be reasonably reasonable, and that's a good thing.

You've glossed over my more important point. Even AFTER having actually read a majority of the data from previous posts, I have no idea how to corroborate OR duplicate the findings of these papers AND NEITHER DO YOU!

Actually, I do have some idea because I work with some fairly complex numerical modeling methods in my profession, and i am involved in some fairly intense experimentation, data collection, analysis, and simulations. While I haven't performed the exact data collection, analysis, and experimentation as the climate scientists and physicists who work on these issues, I understand their methodology fairly well.

To assert that the increases in man made CO2, aerosols, methane and other various greenhouse gase emissions having resulted in a 1.8*C global AIR temp increase, a .55*C ocean temp increase and a 17cm increase in ocean levels since 1880, the data used to collect it and the models used to predict future trends ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN an assertion of more frequent muffler bearing failures, reductions in headlight fluid service life and the increased likihood of whackaman failures using MY data and methodologies provided to someone who has LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE or exposure to an automobile!

One's ignorance of a topic has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

With that said, how do you KNOW that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas? Have YOU physically DUPLICATED those findings?

"Know" is a funny word. Knowledge is a subset of believe. If we proportion our level of belief to the level of evidence, the knowledge means a belief that has overwhelming evidence. All that said, I have performed this experiment myself, which shows that co2 is in fact a greenhouse gas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

How do YOU KNOW how much MAN MADE CO2 gas has been emitted to the atmosphere? HAVE YOU MEASURED IT?

I have not, but many many people have, it has been independently verified over and over. The methods by which is it measured are published, and I could measure it if I wanted to. So could you. Do you really think it is a reasonable position to only believe things that you directly observe? You really do think all the scientists are part of one big conspiracy don't you? Why do you believe that? Have you directly observed it?

Do you KNOW how much MORE greenhouse gases exist in the environment NOW THAN IN 1880? Did YOU PHYSICALLY COLLECT AND TREND THIS DATA.

Same answer as above.

IF CO2 concentrations HAVE increased AND have contributed to global increased temperatures, have YOU COLLECTED ice samples from the polar caps to quantify global CO2 concentrations over decades? Centuries? Millennia?

Same answer as above.

I'm NOT actually asking you to do any of this. I AM actually saying that since virtually ALL come up short of the means and resources to duplicate or "fact check" such findings, we're stuck with having to accept the data on faith..

Faith is a funny word. I define it as the excuse someone gives when they don't have any good reason for their belief. I have trust that is proportional to the evidence. I don't believe that the world's scientists are a bunch of lying conspiracy theorists because there is no evidence to support that. I work with many scientists and engineers and the over arching commonality is integrity and a pursuit of truth. That is my experience. Because of this experience, and because I understand the physics and methodologies that comprise the science and the findings, I think the amount of "faith" I need to believe the scientists is the same amount I need to believe that gravity is going to make a cup fall when I drop it.

If you feel different, that's your prerogative, but I don't think you are being rational.

I have no interest in MAJOR government energy policy legislation based on data that can only be accepted on faith...

I thought we were talking about the science, not the politics. Accepting the science is a separate issue from what the government should do about it. Rejecting the science because you don't like what the government might try to do in light of the findings is an intellectually bankrupt position. I think you know better.

[exhaustgases]

Climate change is the demonrat world control device. And is how you will be giving many things up to save the climate. Anyone care to list the things we have already given up to the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the world? And wish to name some climate change promoters that have not given up the things that they say is the cause of climate change? Its a wealthy mans lie to gain control over everyones lives.

Learn new stuff.

[GRTfast]

Climate change is the demonrat world control device. And is how you will be giving many things up to save the climate. Anyone care to list the things we have already given up to the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the world? And wish to name some climate change promoters that have not given up the things that they say is the cause of climate change? Its a wealthy mans lie to gain control over everyones lives.

Learn new stuff.

shhh, adults are talking. Go play with something that isn't sharp or easily swallowed.

[Kevin Johnson]

...
It's not these reports that I accept at face value, it is the scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed journals that I accept as the best explanations for the observations we make. I posted this for the Trump sycophants on this site.

The thing about science is, you don't have to accept it at face value. If you have sufficient understanding, you can review the data and methods yourself, and you can replicate the results.

If you think the majority of the scientific community is in on some grand conspiracy, all in an effort to get cash, you are literally out of your mind (not you specifically, "you" in general). I'm not sure if you've ever worked with any scientists, but in general they are some of the most educated, honest people you will ever meet, and have a level of professionalism and integrity far beyond the average person. The idea that they are liars and con artists (as many on this site have suggested) is ludicrous.

You seem like a rational person so far, so I'm not sure what your position is, I'm just letting you know where I am coming from.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... ding&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... ant+propos