Warmers are Neurotic Basket Cases

[Cardinal Carminative]

Wow. That was the most vague and simplistic description of the evolution of earth's climate I have ever heard.

It isn't a summary of the earth's climate evolution.

It's an explanation of the value of paleoclimatology.

 

[ding]

It isn't a summary of the earth's climate evolution.

It's an explanation of the value of paleoclimatology.

Ok, that was the most vague and least scientific description of earth's paleo-climatology I have ever heard.

Why don't you describe the last 50 million years in a little more detail? I'll even give you the only curve you will need and even has all the answers provided for you. Go.

 

[abu afak]

("Neurotic basket cases"???)

Consensus Revisited: Do Scientists Still Believe in Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Climate Change?​

SciTech Daily
By IOP PUBLISHING - OCTOBER 20, 2021

"....Out of all survey respondents who answered the primary question about the cause of global warming (n = 2,548), 91.1% responded that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity. This is roughly 11% higher than the 80% agreement found by the 2009 study when asking a similar question about AGW. In addition, the authors found that 100% of the most actively publishing climate experts – those who had published 20 or more climate papers each between 2015 and 2019 – accept that global warming is human-caused.

“The findings show that consensus has increased across the board. The findings also reaffirm that consensus increases with the level of expertise – the more you know about climate science, the more likely you are to understand that humans are responsible for climate change. Near 100% of scientists in our most expert group who identify as climatologists and actively publish in the peer-reviewed literature are in complete agreement that climate change is real and caused by humans,”says Peter Doran...."

Consensus Revisited: Do Scientists Still Believe in Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Climate Change?​

How has scientific agreement on the anthropogenic nature of climate change evolved in 10 years? Scientific support for the link between human activity and climate change has strengthened to the extent that there is now near universal agreement. Whereas in 1996, reports hedged statements with phra
scitechdaily.com

`

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Ok, that was the most vague and least scientific description of earth's paleo-climatology I have ever heard.

That's because you are unfamiliar with both paleoclimatology AND climate science.

 

[ReinyDays]

Both. The popular press tends to overhype things but AGW is a serious concern.

Collapse of agricultural infrastructure. Economic destabilization. Billions of dollars lost on coastal disasters which may get more and more common. The shutdown of the AMOC in the North Atlantic and attendant economic collapse of most of our major trading partners' economies in western Europe.

That enough?

Decarbonization. Changes in land usage.

This is hyperbole ... matters greatly exaggerated beyond reality ... worse than overhype ...

Where has the "agricultural infrastructure" collapsed because of the previous 1ºC? ... and what is this infrastructure you speak of ... I've lived on a number of different farms, both big commercial operations and small "off-grid" homesteads ... the only difference to agriculture is longer growing seasons and less risk of frost damage ... some extra rainfall ...

In fact, we're feeding twice as many people today than we did 40 years ago ... even with the 1ºC temperature increase ... it might take an addition 2ºC over the next 100 years to feed the extra 24 billion people we'll have at this rate population increase ...

Will we have to grow wild rice in Manitoba instead of Minnesota next century ... who cares? ... The Ukraine feeds the world, climate is the least of their concerns right now ...

Coastal disasters ... hypercanes? ... go ahead, explain ... satellite altimeters only give us 2 foot sea level by year 2100 {Cite} ... that doesn't even overtop the docks ... and that's if the docks last 80 years (hint: they don't) ... and I'm fine with just "billions of dollars", Deep Water Horizon cost BP $65 billion {Cite} ... sounds like climate change costs are cheaper than the remediation ...

[sigh] ... go long ... "104% of ALL scientists world-wide say this is gonna cost us hundreds of trillions of dollars" ... better odds of hyperinflation than climate change ...

AMOC runs at 0.01 m/s ... Gulf Stream at 2 m/s ... which is transporting more energy gram-for-gram? ... duh ...

=====

Do you have any demonstration of any of these catastrophes? ... we know from the ice core data that temperatures were closer to 4ºC higher at the beginning of the Holocene ... coincident to the Agricultural Revolution ... if any of this is to happen, then it would have happened before ... evidence is very thin ...

Changes in land usage.

A lot of good reasons for this that have nothing to do with climate change ... why do you persist when we'll need clean water long before the climate bites us ... and we need fresh air ... healthy soils ... honest government ...



... and you didn't say "ditch your A/C" ...

 

[elektra]

Definition: SCIENCE
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Where there appears to be no science would be within whatever substitutes for intellect in your brain.

Are you not a smart one

When the 75 ft tall wind turbines failed...
Science said, make big.

When the 150 ft tall wind turbines failed...
Science said, make big

.
When the 300 ft tall wind turbines failed...
Science said, make big

When the 500 ft tall wind turbines failed...
Science said, make big

When the 900 ft tall wind turbines failed...
Science said, uhh

 

[westwall]

Collapse of America's agricultural infrastructure and/or our entire economy only worth "billions" to you? Interesting view there.

Why would it collapse. Be very specific. The problem with you climate alarmists is you are intentionally vague.

Tell the class, in detail, the mechanism for the collapse you are so worried about.

And, how is spending trillions, to protect billions, a smart move.

You claim to be a big thinker.

Demonstrate.

 

[ding]

That's because you are unfamiliar with both paleoclimatology AND climate science.

That's pretty funny considering I have been schooling you on paleo-climates and their drivers. You still can't even describe the climate changes of the past 50 million years and explain how they are relevant to today.

 

[ding]

The problem with you climate alarmists is you are intentionally vague.

No shit, right?

 

[westwall]

Yeah, science is a LOT more complex than your cartoon view, but if the last science class you had was back in Junior High School I can see how you might think you have some insight here.

No, science is governed by the scientific method. How is Trenberth claiming his experiments not needing to be repeatable, science?

Once again. Be specific, Mr. Big thinker.

 

[westwall]

NOPE. A long time ago the climate changed due to natural forcings. This was long before humans showed up. That is how we know how NATURAL forcings work. We tried explaining the warming we are seeing now using those same natural forcings...and guess what? THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THE WARMING.

You have to utilize human activities to explain the warming.



We need to decarbonize and change our land usage habits. WHy? Because we are responsible.

I know the biggest fear denialists have is "personal responsibility". I hope that isn't how you live your life IRL, but if you do expect bad results. Oh, and your morality fails.

Soooooo, thousands of years ago....these magical "natural forcings" caused a temperature increase.

I think the Sun had something to do with it personally, but to continue, when these "forcings" that yiu can't measure, caused the perma frost to melt, and the methane to release, why didn't the temperature run away then?

Magic again?

 

[Vegasgiants]

No shit, right?

Specific effects can be found here

Effects - NASA Science

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already

climate.nasa.gov

 

[ding]

Specific effects can be found here

Effects - NASA Science

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already

climate.nasa.gov

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, 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

 

[Vegasgiants]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, 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

Almost no one denies that climate change is from human activity. Even AGW contrarians dont deny that

 

[ding]

Almost no one denies that climate change is from human activity. Even AGW contrarians dont deny that

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[Vegasgiants]

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Can you name one scientific agency on earth that supports that idea?

 

[ding]

Can you name one scientific agency on earth that supports that idea?

Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).

 

[Vegasgiants]

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science

No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Vegasgiants]

Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).

So no consensus. Thanks

 

[ding]

So no consensus. Thanks

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in IPCC statements because of the IPCC's desire to speak from one voice. This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.