What do you think of climate change?

[Metis1]

'Consensus" does not mean nor imply “full agreement”. Science works on the basis of consensus since this is simply what we do since we always cite other references in formal scientific papers, but there is always room, and also a necessity, for opposing ideas.

BTW, a friend of mine, who works 6-9 months per year for roughly 15 years now in Antarctica and is right-leaning politically, told me that he would love to show the climate-change deniers in terms of what he’s witnessed even in just the years he’s been there. However, I cannot use his words about what he thinks about these people without getting myself banned here.

 

[Theo520]

And this is an excellent article by Naomi Oreskes and Michael Oppenheimer that shows how scientists have been underestimating the pace of climate change.

A ridiculous assertion given we’ve passed multiple tipping points, and the arctic still has ice cover the scientists said would be gone. The truth is scientists have overestimated the pace of climate change.

In fact the article is just building on the temp record having been adjusted. It all makes for a good headline though.

And this is a an excellent article by Timothy M. Lenton, Johan Rockström, Owen Gaffney,Stefan Rahmstorf, Katherine Richardson, Will Steffen & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber about the growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes.

Just more FUD on ‘tipping points’. Loved how they now insist the risk of abrupt and irreversible changes to the climate will now happen with just 1C of warming.

“Irreversible” - nothing is so
“Abrupt” - is that used because we have yet to see the evidence

Completely bizarre to claim the loss of Antarctic sea ice is maybe now irreversible, all based on computer models from a single small part of Antarctica (Amundsen Sea embayment)

And this is an excellent article from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute about how the damaged ozone layer is interacting with climate change.

BUT BUT, NASA has confirmed the ozone layer is recovering. This would clearly indicate their purported feedback loops are not consequential.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...f-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban

 

[Theo520]

'Consensus" does not mean nor imply “full agreement”.

Actually, there is no definition of ‘Consensus’ but I’m confident that when it has been reached on other matters of scientific import, there has not been this degree of disagreement by the minority.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And this is an excellent article by Naomi Oreskes and Michael Oppenheimer that shows how scientists have been underestimating the pace of climate change.

A ridiculous assertion given we’ve passed multiple tipping points, and the arctic still has ice cover the scientists said would be gone. The truth is scientists have overestimated the pace of climate change.

Well, that’s your assertion. I’ve got an authoritative article that says otherwise. Why should I believe you over them?

And this is a an excellent article by Timothy M. Lenton, Johan Rockström, Owen Gaffney,Stefan Rahmstorf, Katherine Richardson, Will Steffen & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber about the growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes.

Just more FUD on ‘tipping points’. Loved how they now insist the risk of abrupt and irreversible changes to the climate will now happen with just 1C of warming.

Same comment. Your assertion vs. the authors of the articles I cited.

And this is an excellent article from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute about how the damaged ozone layer is interacting with climate change.

BUT BUT, NASA has confirmed the ozone layer is recovering. This would clearly indicate their purported feedback loops are not consequential.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...f-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban

Again, you claim there is no interaction, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute says there is. Why should I believe you over them?

 

[Theo520]

Well, that’s your assertion. I’ve got an authoritative article that says otherwise. Why should I believe you over them?

But you can’t refute the fact I presented, that they used a change in the temperature record to make an alarmist headline. The warming measured is still less than ‘estimated’, ergo proving them false.

Same comment. Your assertion vs. the authors of the articles I cited.

But you are acknowledging they based their opinion on models of one small coastal area of Antarctica. It’s a stretch to project that to global tipping points.

Again, you claim there is no interaction, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute says there is. Why should I believe you over them?

You evaded my argument quite deftly. I didn’t say “there was no interaction”.

I said their feedback loops must not be that significant considering the ozone layer is recovering in spite of said loops, confirmed by NASA.

 

[HarryStotle]

'Consensus" does not mean nor imply “full agreement”. Science works on the basis of consensus since this is simply what we do since we always cite other references in formal scientific papers, but there is always room, and also a necessity, for opposing ideas.

BTW, a friend of mine, who works 6-9 months per year for roughly 15 years now in Antarctica and is right-leaning politically, told me that he would love to show the climate-change deniers in terms of what he’s witnessed even in just the years he’s been there. However, I cannot use his words about what he thinks about these people without getting myself banned here.

Where does your friend work in Antarctica, precisely?

Here is what a recent NASA report says…

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” and …

“…the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica.”

I am guessing your friend works in West Antarctica or the Antarctic Peninsula. The NASA study has a lot to say about that that might give your friend second thoughts about “climate-change deniers.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Well, that’s your assertion. I’ve got an authoritative article that says otherwise. Why should I believe you over them?

But you can’t refute the fact I presented, that they used a change in the temperature record to make an alarmist headline.

I don’t need to refute it on my own. The sources I cited refute it.

Same comment. Your assertion vs. the authors of the articles I cited.

But you are acknowledging they based their opinion on models of one small coastal area of Antarctica. It’s a stretch to project that to global tipping points.

No, I’m not acknowledging anything - especially things that are beyond my expertise for me to pass judgement.

Again, you claim there is no interaction, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute says there is. Why should I believe you over them?

You evaded my argument quite deftly. I didn’t say “there was no interaction”.

I said their feedback loops must not be that significant considering the ozone layer is recovering in spite of said loops, confirmed by NASA.

That is your interpretation of “significant.”

 

[HarryStotle]

Not very many on your side of the argument.

Here is one “prominent expert” who is on your side of the argument…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-03/climate-change-international-security-risk/11714284

Quote: “If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,…”

You can keep him.

 

[HarryStotle]

Metis1:

'Consensus" does not mean nor imply “full agreement”.

Actually, there is no definition of ‘Consensus’ but I’m confident that when it has been reached on other matters of scientific import, there has not been this degree of disagreement by the minority.

I will start taking alarmism seriously when banks begin cutting long term mortgages on ocean front properties and insurance companies begin dropping coverage of those. Perhaps the Obamas and Gore selling beachfront properties might also be considered a signal of something significant.

 

[Elias]

I think it’s a bunch of hooey to sell population control and other products to well intentioned, but misguided people. Ironically, the very same products that are sold to people as “green friendly” are actually worse for the environment.

Your electric car pollutes the environment more than just a conventional automobile in not only thr manufacturing of the car but in the charging of the car via the coal powered plants that provide electricity.
(Are Electric Vehicles Really Better For The Environment?)

Your organic foods take up more land to grow than you typical GMO food. Which means less land for trees and wetlands and rainforests.
( https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...s-worse-for-the-climate-than-non-organic-food )

You see all those sad pictures of the polar bears and think they are in trouble? Funny enough the warmer waters means the seals the eat thrive and reproduce more, which means the polar bears eat and reproduce more. Even the native Inuits are saying the polar bears are better than have ever been before ( Polar bears keep thriving even as global warming alarmists keep pretending they’re dying | Financial Post )
( The REAL inconvenient truth: Polar bears thriving in spite of climate change, but saying this gets scientists fired — RT Op-ed )

Contrary to what Pope Francis and other leftist Hollywood types claim, forrest fires are good for the environment. It helps give nutrition to the soil and gets rid of dead trees so life can begin anew. Failure to regularly set fire to a forrest or actively remove the dead growth results in the hellish conditions of the massive forrest fires you see out in California (it also doesn’t help that the California government imports the most flammable tree from Australia). ( https://www.mrtreeservices.com/blog/forest-fires-benefit-environment/ )

The real inconvenient truth is that climate alarmists are being played and sold out to the corporations and politicians that stand to gain financially from climate alarmism.

 

[HarryStotle]

The real inconvenient truth is that climate alarmists are being played and sold out to the corporations and politicians that stand to gain financially from climate alarmism.

A balanced article that discusses most of the “alarmisms” by showing they are far, far overblown.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

 

[Metis1]

If someone is really serious about NASA and climate change, maybe they should actually look at what NASA says about climate change and its main causes, such as what’s found here at this actual NASA website: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

[HarryStotle]

If someone is really serious about NASA and climate change, maybe they should actually look at what NASA says about climate change and its main causes, such as what’s found here at this actual NASA website: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Your point was specifically about ice melt in Antarctica and how that proves warming.

This is what Nasa has to say about that…

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

The Antarctic ice sheet is gaining and not losing overall. Ergo, it is reducing sea level rise by 0.23 millimeters per year, as per the report.

It is interesting how you want to insist you were still right despite the evidence by shifting the discussion to something else.

Will you concede that your friend was incorrect in his views on Antarctica because, very likely, he was basing them on his merely localized experiences? That would mean your friend doesn’t have the ammunition he thinks he has to attack “deniers.”

Then we can move to looking at the other article by NASA that you cited.

 

[Metis1]

The sheet is gaining in its spread because of “calving”, whereas pieces, one the size of the state of Delaware, that break off.

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula. Although that might not seem very much, it is 5 times the mean rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Impacts of climate change - Discovering Antarctica

Also, with gradually warming water temperatures, more evaporation leads to more precipitation in certain areas, but those areas are not uniform.

I wish some here would stop cherry-picking sources and actually check out the full statements from reputable sources, such as NASA. I posted a link for that site but then someone comes back with a cherry-picked article, which is disingenuous intellectually.

 

[Theo520]

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula.

It’s clear your article is CHERRY PICKING the data, Antarctica Peninsula has not warmed 3C

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Same for the whole of Antarctica.

 

[HumbleIOughtToBe]

 

[ralfyman]

AGW was confirmed by NAS, considered the “gold standard” of science review in the U.S., several years ago. Skeptics funded an independent study, Berkeley Earth, and it also confirmed AGW. So did the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences.

In addition, organizations ranging from the Pentagon and the U.S. military, as well as various multinational banks and insurers, have issues reports to personnel and clients warning of the effects of AGW.

 

[Metis1]

Absolutely, but if one only gets their “news” from Fox and Breitbart, …

 

[Metis1]

Again, to repeat, if one actually checks out the official NAS and NASA websites, amongst other actual reputable science sites, they all make it abundantly clear that we are in a global warming trend and that this is mostly being caused by human actions. Politically oriented sites may say otherwise, but I don’t use them for my science information.

End of story.

 

[phaster]

Back in June (this thread has been open a long time) record high temperatures in France were used to bolster the argument for AGW. I suspect the record snowfall just experienced in the US will be dismissed as weather, not climate, reinforcing the observation that “Only warm weather events prove global warming. Cold weather events are just weather.”

sigh,… attribution studies,… junk science?!

FYI attribution studies also apply to extreme cold weather!!!

Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world

AND FWIW yet again we see confirmation of a study which indicates a total lack of basic scientific understanding (by the general public) of what causes climate change

www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12187

which as I have mentioned can be explained by the simple truth that,…

given lots of “noise” and very little “signal” those w/ out rigorous formal training in a “hard” science and the scientific method are very susceptible to “confirmation bias”

…then there is another related problem,… an ‘illusion of confidence’ which is called the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)