Hot water and storms

[Crick]

I'll take that to mean you can't disprove their claim that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

The correct conclusion is that after scientists have examined ALL the data available concerning global warming, they have come almost universally to the same conclusion: that global warming is real, is a threat, and is driven almost completely by human GHG emissions. Your attempts to suggest there is still some debate taking place among mainstream science is expected, but as expected, a complete failure.

 

[ding]

The correct conclusion is that after scientists have examined ALL the data available concerning global warming, they have come almost universally to the same conclusion: that global warming is real, is a threat, and is driven almost completely by human GHG emissions.

But it's not universally accepted. I just showed you a paper that reaches a different conclusion and reconciles the differences between the two different conclusions.

scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Crick]

If I take some scientists from their labs and shows them dataset A and ask for their conclusions. Then I show them dataset B and ask them for their conclusions. You have NOT determined what those same scientists think of the real world datasets they've been looking at for years. Your argument here is a complete joke and is worth no further discussion.

 

[ding]

If I take some scientists from their labs and shows them dataset A and ask for their conclusions. Then I show them dataset B and ask them for their conclusions. You have NOT determined what those same scientists think of the real world datasets they've been looking at for years. Your argument here is a complete joke and is worth no further discussion.

The IPCC is fully aware they are using temperature data which is effected by the urban heat effect and that they are aware they are using low variability TSI datasets.

 

[ding]

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy): “The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this very issue.”

Connolly

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.raa-journal.org

 

[ding]

Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES): “The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.” The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement. Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind. Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach.

 

[Old Rocks]

No climate crisis. The fires that have burned tens of thousands of square miles worldwide in the last two years say otherwise. The incredible damage done by the floods on all the continents other than Antarctica says otherwise. Ignoring reality is the "Conservatives" dumb **** answer to everything.

 

[ding]

No climate crisis. The fires that have burned tens of thousands of square miles worldwide in the last two years say otherwise. The incredible damage done by the floods on all the continents other than Antarctica says otherwise. Ignoring reality is the "Conservatives" dumb **** answer to everything.

Perfectly normal. Forest fires are a part of nature. They remove old growth to make room for the new growth. Same for floods. They are a part of nature. Floods allow a river's water to reach more areas above and below ground. This water can be stored and used by nature and people. They also filter pollutants out of rivers and nourishing lands to support ecosystems and fertile areas for farming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No climate crisis. The fires that have burned tens of thousands of square miles worldwide in the last two years say otherwise. The incredible damage done by the floods on all the continents other than Antarctica says otherwise. Ignoring reality is the "Conservatives" dumb **** answer to everything.

CO2 is flammable? Combustible? Really??!