CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[SSDD]

IN science this word is not acceptable! PERIOD!

It is when most scientists are in general agreement about something. You know, because that's the definition of a consensus.

When are most scientists ever in agreement...Geez guy, there is still a raging debate happening within the field over what causes gravity...if they can't agree on what causes gravity, how do you suppose it is possible for there to be agreement over what drives something as complicated as climate?

 

[SSDD]

It wasn't "totally debunked" but the left did exaggerate.['quote]

Of course it was debunked...but then, you don't accept anything that challenges your faith...right? How about the 500+ peer reviewed, papers published in 2018 alone which reached conclusions that are skeptical of the consensus view on numerous aspects of climate? Does that sound like consensus? Do you accept the findings of climate scientists whose studies reach conclusions that are not in line with the consensus?

 

[Confounding]

Tell me...how do you know this? What sort of evidence do you have to support that claim?

Do you really think it would be possible to orchestrate a conspiracy that large and keep it under wraps? Do you really think so many scientists would have so little integrity?

The burden of providing evidence is on you. You have charged the scientific community at large with conspiring to deceive the public and you seem to have no evidence of that at all. Irony...

 

[Confounding]

How about the 500+ peer reviewed, papers published in 2018 alone which reached conclusions that are skeptical

How many peer reviewed studies in 2018 do you think came to a different conclusion? I bet the number is a lot, lot higher.

 

[SSDD]

Got a more reputable website than wattsupwiththat.com?

I'm not interested in notrickzone.com either.

Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.

The sites are not in question... they are just places offering access to the information. It is the paper itself that is at issue...not the people who offer you access to it.

 

[SSDD]

How about the 500+ peer reviewed, papers published in 2018 alone which reached conclusions that are skeptical

How many peer reviewed studies in 2018 do you think came to a different conclusion? I bet the number is a lot, lot higher.

Don't know...do you? 500 in a year sounds like a lot if there were nearly the total consensus that you claim.

 

[Confounding]

Don't know...do you? 500 in a year sounds like a lot if there were nearly the total consensus that you claim.

I wonder how many of those "500" actually claimed that man is not contributing to the warming of the Earth. Anyway, there is a consensus among leading scientists. To claim otherwise is just laughable.

 

[Oddball]

Don't know...do you? 500 in a year sounds like a lot if there were nearly the total consensus that you claim.

I wonder how many of those "500" actually claimed that man is not contributing to the warming of the Earth. Anyway, there is a consensus among leading scientists. To claim otherwise is just laughable.

"Consensus" is a political word, not a scientific one...Holding a vote has never been involved in scientific method.

 

[Confounding]

How about the 500+ peer reviewed, papers published in 2018 alone which reached conclusions that are skeptical

How many peer reviewed studies in 2018 do you think came to a different conclusion? I bet the number is a lot, lot higher.

Don't know...do you? 500 in a year sounds like a lot if there were nearly the total consensus that you claim.

And here's the real problem.

I am happy to listen to any skeptical scientist. Your side on the other hand operates on the assumption that the other side is wrong. You don't approach this matter scientifically because it's a partisan issue for you.

 

[Confounding]

"Consensus" is a political word, not a scientific one...Holding a vote has never been involved in scientific method.

It's a word with a meaning that you apparently don't understand.

 

[Billy_Bob]

WUWT is the most trusted site on the web

By who? You?

Get over yourself..

If the stuff being said on those agenda driven blog websites you absorb your information from is legitimate it should be on more than just blog websites, but it's not. Does it really not bother you that so much of what you believe can only be found on fringe blogs with no standards for journalistic integrity?

Some of us are capable of see through BS. Others not so much. I read all kinds of sites and I evaluate what they are saying. You do what you want. I wont leave my destiny to deceivers.

 

[SSDD]

why do they keep doubling down on their failures?

I don't think they failed so much as their models and predictions aren't perfect yet. If there was a bunch of evidence in their face screaming "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING!" they'd be examining and considering it. That's simply not reality though.

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2emissions have been about 25% above the business as usual scenario.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, see here.

2014 Dr. John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Obama administration said: “a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” See here.

Reality check: By predicting both milder winters and colder winters the probability of getting it right increases. Now, to cover all possibilities they simply need to predict no change in winters.


2000 Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicts that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” See here.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. See here.

2004 Adam Watson, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, Aberdeenshire, said the Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left. See here.

Reality check: 2014 had the snowiest Scottish mountains in 69 years. One ski resort’s problem was having some of the lifts buried in snow. See here.

Reality check: Northern Hemisphere snow area shows remarkable little change since 1967. See here. The 2012-2013 winter was the fourth largest winter snow cover extent on record for the Northern Hemisphere. See here.

2007 IPCC AR4 predicts that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. See here.

Reality check: Only six years later, IPPC acknowledges that confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, and that AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. See here, page 162.

2010 Dr. Morris Bender, from NOAA, and coauthors predict that “the U.S. Southeast and the Bahamas will be pounded by more very intense hurricanes in the coming decades due to global warming.” They say the strongest hurricanes may double in frequency. See here.

Reality check: After 40 years of global warming no increase in hurricanes has been detected. NOAA U.S. Landfalling Tropical System index shows no increase, and in fact, a very unusual 11-year drought in strong hurricane US landfalls took place from 2005-2016. See NOAA statistics here.

IPCC AR5 (see here) states “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms”

2007 Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that Global warming will make Earth spin faster. See here.

2015 Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change. See here.

Reality check: Doing one thing and its opposite simultaneously has always been possible for climate change. However, the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) informs us that the Earth slowed down from the start of measurements in 1962 to 1972, and sped up between 1972 and 2005. Since 2006 it is slowing down again. It shows the same inconsistency as global warming. See here.

This is failure by any definition...and this is just the tip of the ice berg insofar as failed predictions go...so why don't they scrap the hypothesis and start work on a new one that doesn't have CO2 driving the climate?

Why do you think the scientists are telling us something other than what you believe?

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

 

[task0778]

Do we need to revisit the 97% consensus reports that are now more than 10 years old and have been totally debunked?

It wasn't "totally debunked" but the left did exaggerate.

The lie was that 97% of all scientists believe that humans are a critical threat to the environment.

The truth is that 97% of all climate scientists agree that humans are impacting the Earth's temperature to some extent. There is not a consensus on the extent, but a large majority do believe that it is moderate to severe.

Got any evidence to support your contention of what the "truth" is? Either that 97% of all climate scientists agree on ANYTHING, or that a large majority believe that human impact on the Earth's temperature is moderate to severe. Are you aware of the intense peer pressure on many climate scientists to tow the party line in support of the GW/CC alarmist pov or suffer the consequences? Which in many cases was quite damaging and even close to career ending?

The way I heard it, one source of this 97% consensus is the responses from 75 of 77 “climate scientists” who were selected from a 2010 survey that went to 10,257 scientists. Apparently, the analysts didn’t like the “consensus” of the other 10,180 scientists, so they ignored their input but forgot to mention that in publicizing the results. Another study, by a University of Queensland professor, claimed that 97% of published scientific papers agree that humans caused at least half of the 1.3o F (0.7o C) global warming since 1950; in reality, only 41 of the 11,944 papers cited explicitly said this.

So when I hear someone espousing the 97% agreement by climate scientists, I gotta raise the BS flag. You can call it exaggeration, but I call it bull crap.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your side on the other hand operates on the assumption that the other side is wrong. You don't approach this matter scientifically because it's a partisan issue for you.

You confuse your political beliefs for those that are based in real science and fact. I deal in the real and factual world as do others here. You not so much..

 

[SSDD]

There is no evidence that points towards man being the cause of climate change

The scientists believe differently. Why is that?

You tell me... I am saying that there is no observed, measured evidence to support that belief. Scientists are supposed to be a naturally skeptical bunch and not prone to agreement unless there is some pretty convincing evidence there to convince them. Cleary there is none of that or it would be visible everywhere...what else might get a bunch of natural skeptics to agree on a thing even when there is no observed, measured evidence to support the belief?

 

[Confounding]

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

 

[Confounding]

You tell me

I did. It's because you're ignorant and they're not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

why do they keep doubling down on their failures?

I don't think they failed so much as their models and predictions aren't perfect yet. If there was a bunch of evidence in their face screaming "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING!" they'd be examining and considering it. That's simply not reality though.

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi.

Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2emissions have been about 25% above the business as usual scenario.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, see here.

2014 Dr. John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Obama administration said: “a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” See here.

Reality check: By predicting both milder winters and colder winters the probability of getting it right increases. Now, to cover all possibilities they simply need to predict no change in winters.


2000 Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicts that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” See here.

2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. See here.

2004 Adam Watson, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, Aberdeenshire, said the Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left. See here.

Reality check: 2014 had the snowiest Scottish mountains in 69 years. One ski resort’s problem was having some of the lifts buried in snow. See here.

Reality check: Northern Hemisphere snow area shows remarkable little change since 1967. See here. The 2012-2013 winter was the fourth largest winter snow cover extent on record for the Northern Hemisphere. See here.

2007 IPCC AR4 predicts that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. See here.

Reality check: Only six years later, IPPC acknowledges that confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, and that AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. See here, page 162.

2010 Dr. Morris Bender, from NOAA, and coauthors predict that “the U.S. Southeast and the Bahamas will be pounded by more very intense hurricanes in the coming decades due to global warming.” They say the strongest hurricanes may double in frequency. See here.

Reality check: After 40 years of global warming no increase in hurricanes has been detected. NOAA U.S. Landfalling Tropical System index shows no increase, and in fact, a very unusual 11-year drought in strong hurricane US landfalls took place from 2005-2016. See NOAA statistics here.

IPCC AR5 (see here) states “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms”

2007 Dr. Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published a study predicting that Global warming will make Earth spin faster. See here.

2015 Dr. Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard University finds out that days are getting longer as the Earth spins slower, and blames climate change. See here.

Reality check: Doing one thing and its opposite simultaneously has always been possible for climate change. However, the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) informs us that the Earth slowed down from the start of measurements in 1962 to 1972, and sped up between 1972 and 2005. Since 2006 it is slowing down again. It shows the same inconsistency as global warming. See here.

This is failure by any definition...and this is just the tip of the ice berg insofar as failed predictions go...so why don't they scrap the hypothesis and start work on a new one that doesn't have CO2 driving the climate?

Why do you think the scientists are telling us something other than what you believe?

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Confirmation Collapse...(BIAS)

When you can no longer determine where the BS begins the whole is now BS...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

 

[Confounding]

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

View attachment 249329
Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

You should show that graph to the scientists that work for NOAA. I bet they've never seen it before. Maybe they'd disappear you for disrupting the narrative.