Here is a paper that Roger and colleagues published this very year that concluded that a plausible scenario for climate change is an increase in temperatures from 2 to 3°C by the end of the century. Which would be catastrophic given that we’re only at 1.1 C now. Do you agree with Roger? if you disagree with him here why do you cite him a…
Here is a paper that Roger and colleagues published this very year that concluded that a plausible scenario for climate change is an increase in temperatures from 2 to 3°C by the end of the century. Which would be catastrophic given that we’re only at 1.1 C now. Do you agree with Roger? if you disagree with him here why do you cite him as an expert on drought? Is he perpetrating a hoax on the amount of climate change we can expect but is being honest about drought?
You might want to read the paper thru to the end. Per the paper "It is also notable that the vast majority of scenarios that project futures to 2100 failed our simple criteria of plausibility by 2020, even though they were developed in recent years and decades. This raises questions about the appropriate use of long-term scenarios as projections of plausible futures, rather than as exploratory tools (Bankes 1993), and suggests a need for policy-relevant scenarios that are updated much more regularly with new observational information, similarly to the IEA's near-term scenarios (Burgess et al 2021, O'Neill et al 2020, Pielke and Ritchie 2021a)". Simple interpretation
- we really don't know what the future will bring. Also, note that the entire premise of the paper is based on Co2 being the single factor that controls climate - all climate models are based around that assumption which is completely absurd. Note also that the paper does not discuss consequences at all - it simply examines plausibility of the various scenarios.
As to agreeing with Roger on one hand and disagreeing on the other, what about you? And, more importantly, I don't see in the article that you link anything to suggest that Roger thinks we are headed to climate catastrophe. Moreover, his articles show how biased the media is and it is you who parrots the doomsday narrative which is not supported by the data at all.
A few more things for you to consider. Look at the historical data that shows temperatures were higher during the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warming periods than what is being predicted 80 years from now - as if anyone has any real clue about anything that far into the future. The warmer times in the past were times of prosperity compared to cooler times like the little ice age which were marked by crop failures, plagues and famines. Plus, there is a difference between looking at actual observed data and making predictions using flawed computer models making all kinds of assumptions largely based on the premise that co2 all by itself controls climate - a completely absurd assumption, which is all that paper is doing. Plus, you can also look at how successful the alarmists have been in their predictions - zero for all time: https://extinctionclock.org/
Here is a paper that Roger and colleagues published this very year that concluded that a plausible scenario for climate change is an increase in temperatures from 2 to 3°C by the end of the century. Which would be catastrophic given that we’re only at 1.1 C now. Do you agree with Roger? if you disagree with him here why do you cite him as an expert on drought? Is he perpetrating a hoax on the amount of climate change we can expect but is being honest about drought?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf/meta
You might want to read the paper thru to the end. Per the paper "It is also notable that the vast majority of scenarios that project futures to 2100 failed our simple criteria of plausibility by 2020, even though they were developed in recent years and decades. This raises questions about the appropriate use of long-term scenarios as projections of plausible futures, rather than as exploratory tools (Bankes 1993), and suggests a need for policy-relevant scenarios that are updated much more regularly with new observational information, similarly to the IEA's near-term scenarios (Burgess et al 2021, O'Neill et al 2020, Pielke and Ritchie 2021a)". Simple interpretation
- we really don't know what the future will bring. Also, note that the entire premise of the paper is based on Co2 being the single factor that controls climate - all climate models are based around that assumption which is completely absurd. Note also that the paper does not discuss consequences at all - it simply examines plausibility of the various scenarios.
As to agreeing with Roger on one hand and disagreeing on the other, what about you? And, more importantly, I don't see in the article that you link anything to suggest that Roger thinks we are headed to climate catastrophe. Moreover, his articles show how biased the media is and it is you who parrots the doomsday narrative which is not supported by the data at all.
A few more things for you to consider. Look at the historical data that shows temperatures were higher during the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warming periods than what is being predicted 80 years from now - as if anyone has any real clue about anything that far into the future. The warmer times in the past were times of prosperity compared to cooler times like the little ice age which were marked by crop failures, plagues and famines. Plus, there is a difference between looking at actual observed data and making predictions using flawed computer models making all kinds of assumptions largely based on the premise that co2 all by itself controls climate - a completely absurd assumption, which is all that paper is doing. Plus, you can also look at how successful the alarmists have been in their predictions - zero for all time: https://extinctionclock.org/