Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:45:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

Sustainable, renewable energy.

OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of
anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument.

I doubt anyone has that as a priority.

We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain
levels the effects are climate change will be minimal.

I think we are all agreed about that. The argument is about what is
that 'certain level'.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:45:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

Sustainable, renewable energy.

OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of
anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument.

I doubt anyone has that as a priority.

We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain
levels the effects are climate change will be minimal.

I think we are all agreed about that. The argument is about what is
that 'certain level'.

There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by
1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better.

The problem is we've already breached 400ppm.

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:06:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:45:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

Sustainable, renewable energy.

OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of
anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument.

I doubt anyone has that as a priority.

We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain
levels the effects are climate change will be minimal.

I think we are all agreed about that. The argument is about what is
that 'certain level'.

There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by
1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better.

The problem is we've already breached 400ppm.

That is very arguable. The data is dubious. The mathematics is
probably erronius. The absence physical evidence for the underlying
theory is conspicuous. It fails the Feynman test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU

Coincidence is not causation.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:06:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:45:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

Sustainable, renewable energy.

OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of
anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument.

I doubt anyone has that as a priority.

We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain
levels the effects are climate change will be minimal.

I think we are all agreed about that. The argument is about what is
that 'certain level'.

There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by
1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better.

The problem is we've already breached 400ppm.

That is very arguable.

Hardly. The absolute numbers, maybe, but we are definitely we're in the
window where if we don't make significant changes now we're facing a very
unstable future.

The data is dubious.

The data are sound and the evidence is all around us. Only someone with
their head in the sand would fail to acknowledge it.

The mathematics is
probably erronius. The absence physical evidence for the underlying
theory is conspicuous. It fails the Feynman test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU

Coincidence is not causation.

Very glib.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

--- snip ---

There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by
1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better.

The problem is we've already breached 400ppm.

That is very arguable.

Hardly. The absolute numbers, maybe, but we are definitely we're in the
window where if we don't make significant changes now we're facing a very
unstable future.

The data is dubious.

The data are sound and the evidence is all around us. Only someone with
their head in the sand would fail to acknowledge it.

The ata is not sound and this can be seen by anyone who looks at it.
It has been considerably adjusted (AKA tampered with) over the years
so that the records of the past you see today bear little resemblance
to those for the same period 50 years ago. The adjustments alays make
the past cooler when in fact some years were even hotter than now,
particularly in the 1930s.


The mathematics is
probably erronius. The absence physical evidence for the underlying
theory is conspicuous. It fails the Feynman test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU

Coincidence is not causation.

Very glib.

And also very true.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 25/09/2019 04:44, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

--- snip ---

There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by
1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better.

The problem is we've already breached 400ppm.

That is very arguable.

Hardly. The absolute numbers, maybe, but we are definitely we're in the
window where if we don't make significant changes now we're facing a very
unstable future.

The data is dubious.

The data are sound and the evidence is all around us. Only someone with
their head in the sand would fail to acknowledge it.

The ata is not sound and this can be seen by anyone who looks at it.
It has been considerably adjusted (AKA tampered with) over the years

If there is a sound to adjust data then it isn't tampering. As our
knowledge of the data improves so does how to best work with it.

so that the records of the past you see today bear little resemblance
to those for the same period 50 years ago. The adjustments alays make
the past cooler when in fact some years were even hotter than now,
particularly in the 1930s.

As per above historical data interpretations can justifiably differ from
more recent interpretations.


The mathematics is
probably erronius. The absence physical evidence for the underlying
theory is conspicuous. It fails the Feynman test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU

Coincidence is not causation.

Very glib.

And also very true.

And completely irrelevant to the topic in hand.