"Linear AGW view of climate change fundamentally flawed."

[skookerasbil]

Time to re-think the climate change challenge

From ScienceNordic......real interesting review of recently released paper. Wont be of interest to members of the religion but is a top story today on REALCLEARPOLITICS. Speaks directly to a very shortsighted view that CO2 is the prime driver of the climate and that recent research indicates other critical factors must be considered. Basically says, the strict AGW theory is weak.

 

[skookerasbil]

Weak

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 can't drive climate on planet Earth

 

[Billy_Bob]

Weak

Gawd I hate politically correct speech... I would have called it what it is.. A lie based on political pseudoscience....

 

[mamooth]

So, the paper says:

---
There is likely to be much more at stake in transgressing the Paris climate targets than just a slightly warmer planet.
---

That is, it says that earth's climate is much more unstable than previously thought. It doesn't discount the effects of CO2. That's where skook and all the deniers here pooched it hilariously, as they always do on any science. It says CO2 is one factor of many.

It concludes that since earth's climate is so unstable, it's even more important to reign in CO2, since the earth could be much closer to a tipping point, and the additional CO2 could push it over.

And to think deniers thought that the paper supported them. Their perfect string of total failure remains unbroken.

 

[polarbear]

CO2 can't drive climate on planet Earth

Notice how they always run for their 95% consensus emergency exit every time they get cornered by the facts.
In the final analysis it is no more than an "expert" opinion that CO2 can drive the climate and when they say it`s based on a 95% confidence level then you are supposed to drop that word "opinion" and substitute it with "scientific fact". Bullshit! A scientific fact requires a 100% confidence level, in other words no other outcome is possible else mathematics would no longer have to work out problems how to predict the next prime number and much more. The same "experts" would also have a 95% confidence level that a spaghetti breaks into 2 pieces

because they have absolutely no clue how many ways there are for energy to dissipate, the preferred path always being the one of least resistance.

 

[skookerasbil]

So, the paper says:

---
There is likely to be much more at stake in transgressing the Paris climate targets than just a slightly warmer planet.
---

That is, it says that earth's climate is much more unstable than previously thought. It doesn't discount the effects of CO2. That's where skook and all the deniers here pooched it hilariously, as they always do on any science. It says CO2 is one factor of many.

It concludes that since earth's climate is so unstable, it's even more important to reign in CO2, since the earth could be much closer to a tipping point, and the additional CO2 could push it over.

And to think deniers thought that the paper supported them. Their perfect string of total failure remains unbroken.

Like I said....."The religion would have no interest....."

 

[Old Rocks]

Ye Gods and little fishes. Are all of you deniers really that fucking stupid. Here is the general thrust of this article. And it is not good news for the dumb assed deniers.

Time to re-think the climate change challenge

A radical perspective of the Earth system?
Our article offers a different perspective – that the Earth System may behave as ‘complex system’, with well-defined states and transitions between them driven largely by feedback processes within the system, not only by ‘external’ drivers. This perspective is not as radical as it sounds.

The Earth System has behaved this way in the recent past. The regular oscillations between ice ages and warm periods – like our current warm period, the Holocene – comprise a good example. The heavy lifting in the transitions between these states is done by feedback processes within the Earth System, not by the external forcing due to small changes in Earth’s orbit.

We argue that our current, very high human emissions of greenhouse gases could activate some important feedback processes within the system.

Examples include melting of Arctic summer sea ice that accelerates warming in the north, increasing wildfires in the boreal forests and Amazon rainforest that release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and the melting of permafrost in Siberia, which could release vast amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere.

Read More: What will our climate look like in 2050?

 

[skookerasbil]

Ye Gods and little fishes. Are all of you deniers really that fucking stupid. Here is the general thrust of this article. And it is not good news for the dumb assed deniers.

Time to re-think the climate change challenge

A radical perspective of the Earth system?
Our article offers a different perspective – that the Earth System may behave as ‘complex system’, with well-defined states and transitions between them driven largely by feedback processes within the system, not only by ‘external’ drivers. This perspective is not as radical as it sounds.

The Earth System has behaved this way in the recent past. The regular oscillations between ice ages and warm periods – like our current warm period, the Holocene – comprise a good example. The heavy lifting in the transitions between these states is done by feedback processes within the Earth System, not by the external forcing due to small changes in Earth’s orbit.

We argue that our current, very high human emissions of greenhouse gases could activate some important feedback processes within the system.

Examples include melting of Arctic summer sea ice that accelerates warming in the north, increasing wildfires in the boreal forests and Amazon rainforest that release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and the melting of permafrost in Siberia, which could release vast amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere.

Read More: What will our climate look like in 2050?

What will our climate look like in 2050?

The definitive answer to that?

Nobody knows. That's it.

There are some who embrace the tragic view as if it is a certainty. Has nothing to do with the "science". Some people are just prone to the hysterical and not just to their views on the climate. These are folks who see a severe thunderstorm and are thinking it has to do with climate change....just tend to the hysterical.

But most normal people watch the evolving landscape of the climate and see it as most do....a dynamic of the earth that's been going on since forever....un-hysterical if you will.

And let's face it....people now know that computer models have created the hysteria amongst the few. And they see it as a waste of time to worry about such things ESPECIALLY since unlike the hysterical contingent, know that even if we all knew the computer models to be accurate, also know we cant do dick about changing the climate anyway.

 

[polarbear]

Ye Gods and little fishes. Are all of you deniers really that fucking stupid. Here is the general thrust of this article. And it is not good news for the dumb assed deniers.

Time to re-think the climate change challenge

A radical perspective of the Earth system?
Our article offers a different perspective – that the Earth System may behave as ‘complex system’, with well-defined states and transitions between them driven largely by feedback processes within the system, not only by ‘external’ drivers. This perspective is not as radical as it sounds.

The Earth System has behaved this way in the recent past. The regular oscillations between ice ages and warm periods – like our current warm period, the Holocene – comprise a good example. The heavy lifting in the transitions between these states is done by feedback processes within the Earth System, not by the external forcing due to small changes in Earth’s orbit.

We argue that our current, very high human emissions of greenhouse gases could activate some important feedback processes within the system.

Examples include melting of Arctic summer sea ice that accelerates warming in the north, increasing wildfires in the boreal forests and Amazon rainforest that release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and the melting of permafrost in Siberia, which could release vast amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere.

Read More: What will our climate look like in 2050?

We argue that our current, very high human emissions of greenhouse gases could activate some important feedback processes within the system.
If they are 95% confident as they claim to be then why do they keep using words like "could" instead of "does"?
People say "does" when the statistical confidence is way below 95%, but then we only know that it is so because we can access the raw data instead of just the average of an average.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ye Gods and little fishes. Are all of you deniers really that fucking stupid. Here is the general thrust of this article. And it is not good news for the dumb assed deniers.

Time to re-think the climate change challenge

A radical perspective of the Earth system?
Our article offers a different perspective – that the Earth System may behave as ‘complex system’, with well-defined states and transitions between them driven largely by feedback processes within the system, not only by ‘external’ drivers. This perspective is not as radical as it sounds.

The Earth System has behaved this way in the recent past. The regular oscillations between ice ages and warm periods – like our current warm period, the Holocene – comprise a good example. The heavy lifting in the transitions between these states is done by feedback processes within the Earth System, not by the external forcing due to small changes in Earth’s orbit.

We argue that our current, very high human emissions of greenhouse gases could activate some important feedback processes within the system.

Examples include melting of Arctic summer sea ice that accelerates warming in the north, increasing wildfires in the boreal forests and Amazon rainforest that release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and the melting of permafrost in Siberia, which could release vast amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere.

Read More: What will our climate look like in 2050?

We argue that our current, very high human emissions of greenhouse gases could activate some important feedback processes within the system.
If they are 95% confident as they claim to be then why do they keep using words like "could" instead of "does"?
People say "does" when the statistical confidence is way below 95%, but then we only know that it is so because we can access the raw data instead of just the average of an average.

It's a progressive thing...they fall for loose association semantics all the time. Tune in CNN any night and it is on full display.....no matter the story. They get all the suckers.....

If you watch closely when climate crusader guys post, they always use loose association words like "increased", "higher", "up", "trends", "worsening", "decreased", "strenghtening"......crap all built in the the ruse. The suckers are too dim witted to pick up on it or are aware and perpetuating the ruse for the suckers!

 

[Old Rocks]

Loose associations are when you get your climate information from the frauds at WUWT and other such sites. You posted an article which supported AGW, and stated that things may get worse far more quickly than we expect. Then you denied that it said that. And now you are saying the the language in the article you posted is bad. LOL Next you will be claiming that someone else posted that article. Perhaps you should read the article before posting it.