Another fun climate change thread

chicken little isnt making the world a happier place either..

 

I agree climate scientists point out that one of the consequences of global warming and climate change is an increase in extreme events.

 

Uh yeah, about that . . .

1:15:33 mark:

Even the proponents of the manmade-global-warming-scare in the video know better.

 

none the stadiums have changed lighting, and none the car dealerships either. uhumpf..

 

Worlds population has doubled in 50 years, wad about 3.6 billion in 1969

The fact that more humans are affected by natural disasters should come as no surprise.

The fact that we hear about it more in the age of the internet should not come as a surprise either.

As for "increase in extreme events" what was the most powerful hurricane on earth in the last 3 1/2 billion years.

If these experts are so sure they should be able to supply figures of how many more floods, hurricanes etc are happening now. A percentage figure on how much stronger they supposedly are

 

There are both in frequency and severity.

Any scientist you can find who is not I can likely trace back to the fossil fuel industry.

 

Uh yeah, about that . . .

1:15:33 mark:

Even the proponents of the manmade-global-warming-scare in the video know better than that.

 

You are not presenting enough evidence to be scientifically valid.

 

You are not acknowledging what those anthropogenic global warming proponents have stated. What did you hear them say?

 

Sometimes, when I want to have fun, I go to this thread.

 

I heard him say what he is paid to say.

Interesting you like one guys credentials and ignore 1,000 of others. The man does not have the support of peers therefore his science is junk.

The good thing about science is that it's true rather you believe it or not.

 

Sometimes,

Do you understand that the ones you heard were the ones who are pushing the anthropogenic global warming agenda? Who would be paying them?

 

The fossil fuel industry pays. They make it a politcal issue over the free market.

Do you understand that the scientific evidence says global warming is occurring? Do you understand that each year is usualy hotter than the last? Do you understand there are no polar ice caps and species such as the Polor Bear are extinct?

Name one reason to lie about this. I don't have time for your nonsense.

 

So let me get this straight. You believe that the guys in the video who were claiming that global warming is real are paid by the fossil fuel industry. Your thinking is kind of backwards.

 

I'm so glad I have a tv

 

That's too bad. I was just getting to this, and now you don't want to talk any more.

True science is empirical and replicated--it constantly probes doubts, investigates, examines, and welcomes dissent. Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No.5 in 2013. For this No.5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus–that global warming is both occurring and man-made–exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or minimal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%). Those that disproved global warming were dismissed.
___________________________________________________

And to that point:

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
___________________________________________________

I could go on . . .

 

And before you go, here's some more disparaging facts about the IPCC who has somehow gained your loyalty:

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism withwhich many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

 

It seems this issue is being distracted by a red herring. Of course the fossil fuel industry supports invalid claims that they are not the culprit. I remember the horrible example of the application to build colstrip units 3 and 4 in Montana. Testimony before the Montana Public Service Commission and demand focasts were Ignored. So a big CO2 belching plant was shoved down the throats of Montana rate payers and the electricity was shipped out of state. Peer reviewed science and basic atmosphere chemistry and physics are discarded in the name of short term profit.

Or we could look at an economic argument...The odds that independent climate scientists are wrong is very low...yet the costs of betting against them are astronomical. Those who discard the CO2 issue have a very low probility of being vindicated and the costs of limiting carbon emissions are orders of magnitude less than the already mounting costs of climate change. Why would any rational human decide to go with the low probability very high cost option?

 

It's only the American Republican as a whole that denies climate change. It's a politcal wedge issue in a 2 party system. They also discourage college and the "liberal indoctrination" of science. As a whole I think many blue collar Americans are left having to deny it now. It's scary to think it's true and the guy I hate says it is.

An example of a city that been around for a long time. It has probably seem it's fair share of changing weather. Yet, something is new here.

 

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released “Global Warming of 1.5 C,” dubbed SR15, an IPCC special report last week, claiming that, unless governments virtually eliminate human production of carbon dioxide (CO2), we are headed toward a climate catastrophe.

The UK’s The Guardian reported that the report authors say, “urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris Agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate forecasts were wrong from their earliest reports in 1990. They were so inaccurate that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three “projections”: low, medium, and high. Since then, even their “low” scenario projections were wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change created an illusion of certainty about their science, and therefore their forecasts. They let people think that they study all causes of climate change when they only look at human-caused change. That is impossible unless you know and understand total climate change and the mechanisms, and we don’t. It allowed them to ignore all non-human causes of change, including the Sun.