The religion of climate change.

What science is there here? This is about collusion and conspiracy. I invite you to read the emails if you can find them. Very illuminating. All about "keeping the message pure", and not diluting with contravening scientific findings and all. Very dodgy those folks... And yes, when it comes to the public face of AGW, it's like scientology, on steroids.....

 

The blog posts aggregate scientific data. You can look at the sources they cite. Yes, we have had ice ages. No, that doesn't explain the current warming trend. Yes, the sources I gave you address that fake argument, and it may be one of the most factually ignorant argument offered by denialists. It is based on a basic logical fallacy called the single cause fallacy. It is exactly the same as arguing that humans can't cause forest fires because there were forest fires before humans or that cigarettes can't cause cancer because there was cancer before cigarettes. Like I said, this may be the dumbest "argument" in the denialist toolbox.

And as I said: no one has proposed a natural cause that fits the data of the current warming trend. If you would like to be the first, have at it. You'll be famous and I'd love to be the first the hear the theory. I'm all ears.

As for your ~<4% argument, it was addressed in the last post. Please refer to that post if you are actually interested in learning the answer. The scientific consensus is that a doubling of CO2 results in roughly a 3 degree Celsius increase in global average temperature, and humans have contributed significantly to atmospheric CO2 not just through our own emissions but also through our destruction of carbon sinks.

 

Dude , really? You are going to base your entire belief system around the actions of .00001% of a group? I'll trust my own eyes with the deterioration of local reef and the visual rise in ocean level and local flooding. But you continue to cling to the beliefs of a couple of bloggers and a few screwed up climatologists - conspiracy nutters are like that.

 

Nothing you can prove. The current hypothesis is unverifiable. The only truth in climate science are first principles. How they are applied is the debatable issue. Basing policy on incomplete and incorrect climate models is the definition of insanity. Scaring people and basing policy using the worst case/least likely computer model scenario is disingenuous if not evil.

It is sad that you do not follow the science but instead are swayed by alarmists using incomplete information often incorrect information. The fact that over the last 3 decades none of the alarmist predictions have come true. Now, for the useful idiots, the alarmists and ignorant media are claiming that current weather is global warming when in fact, in the US, the average temperature has not statistically changed for 18 years.

 

What explains the warming trend after the end of the Little Ice Age and before it is claimed when CO2 affects warming (by the IPCC) starting in the 1950's? Magic?

 

Since records began for sea level rise, there is no discernible acceleration based on the current hypothesis but a steady rise from the end of the Little Ice Age and were higher during the Holocene Optimum. Reefs come and go and always recover and still are. I doubt that a 1/2 rise in ocean levels affect local flooding much. Local flooding is caused by weather.

 

None have come true? They predicted coral reefs would die back -they have. They predicted sea water levels would rise - I'm going to say since I can look out the window at the sea wall - that yes, they have risen. They predicted that northers sea lanes would open up as northern ice melted back - they have.
You can pretend things haven't changed, but they have. This isn't about some scientific paper, these are observable facts.

 

It is the best explanation that has been offered. No other explanation fits the data.

The current hypothesis has risen to the top by being the most reliable hypothesis.

The climate models have been extremely accurate and I haven't said a word about policy.

Telling people to ignore the facts because they are inconvenient for your political beliefs or you don't like what policies may result from it is the same boat.

It is sad that you feel the need to avoid the facts and make up things to "argue." I'm following the science. If you had science on your side, you'd offer it, which is what the scientists I've spoken to have done when I've asked them about climate change.

Unless you actually look at the models. The doubling of CO2 = ~3 degree Celsius increase in global average temperature.

Oh, I agree that some in the media take a chapter from the denialist handbook from time to time and confuse weather for climate.

The US is not the globe. Also: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

 

Warming is not an unusual thing since it was warmer and colder during other periods of the Holocene. Local sea level rises are affected by other things such as currents, for instance, the rise on the US eastern coast is quit higher due to the currents and not warming. If you think you can see sea level rise due to warming, you are imagining things. You are not old enough to see that.

 

You don't know much do you? Reef die-back isn't just isolated - it's hitting 90% of all reef systems. This is not normal.

Try a little experiment. Fill a glass with water and swirl it around. Notice the levels at the edges of the glass are higher than those in the middle. This is what's happening to those of who live on the Gulf Stream - a 1 inch rise in general sea level results in FAR higher tides on the coastlines along the moving water of the Gulf Stream. Science - it's a wonderful thing - unless you ignore it.

 

I honestly can't tell if you are even being serious or not. Just in case you are: no one claims that every warming trend in history was caused by man or caused by CO2. That's a denialist straw man which, as I have explained, is probably the most braindead argument in the denialist toolbox. It is the same as arguing that humans can't cause forest fires because there were forest fires before humans or that cigarettes can't cause cancer because there was cancer before there were cigarettes. The argument is as dumb as a sack of hammers.

 

I'll let the people of Ft. Lauderdale know that the increased flooding in their streets is just their imagination ... wtf.

 

I can't believe they still pull that out their ass - but whatever.

 

The only reason you think that nothing else explains the warming is because you have a deficit of information and do not follow the science but are flooded with the populist alarmist dogma.

The current hypothesis is popular but not verifiable. That does not mean it is correct. There are lots of instances where populist hypothesis have been proven wrong.

The climate models are running warm. That is verifiable. Lots of scientific discussions about that. There is a saying in science. All models are always wrong. That is because, especially for climate science, they cannot model the non linear chaotic earth. Too complicated, too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Too many shortcuts because processing power is not up to it. GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.

Interesting that you make this about politics and it tells me where your bias is. Your belief appears to be based in political bias and not the actual science. I suggest you find out what many solar scientists say about this instead of the few alarmist scientists. Look at the actual scientists studies that are labeled as 'deniers' because they do not push the current dogma. Read about the problems involved with modelling. Find out how many actual papers stand the test of time (it isn't a lot). Find out the problems in peer review. Look at the few vocal scientists histories pushing the current alarmist position (and it is only a few).

 

The smoking gun...the cooling stratosphere simultaneous with the warming troposphere and hydrosphere. It goes like this.

FACT: The troposphere and hydrosphere are warming. This is confirmed by 3 different satellite datasets, 6 surface station datasets, and over a dozen reanalysis datasets, and several ocean datasets. There is no dataset in existence that refutes this. Literally...none.

FACT: The greenhouse gas effect is responsible for nearly all of the warming after 1960. The cooling stratosphere is the smoking gun. There is no other physical process that can cause this unique observation. Literally...none.

FACT: The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is almost entirely due to human behavior (primarily the burning of fossil fuels). This is confirmed via several lines of evidence including the reduction of the 14C-to-13C/12C ratio, the change in the 13C-to-12C ratio, the change in the O2-to-total ratio, the mass accounting of the fossil fuel dug up out of the ground, the acidification of the ocean, etc.

Also, just to clarify something so that others don't read your post and get the wrong idea. Humans are responsible for 4% of the total CO2 emissions (measured in ppm/yr) into the atmosphere. We are responsible for 0% of the absorptions (measured in ppm/yr). We are responsible for 30% of the total concentration (measured in ppm). And finally we are responsible for 100% of the increase since the preindustrial era.

 

Well your first problem is that 90% of reefs are not even surveyed and for the list of things that affect reefs, climate change rates at the bottom.

 

Yes. Absolutely. The work has been performed by thousands of scientists over the course of 120+ years. The IPCC cites 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts. Download the AR5 report. All of the citations you seek are there.

 

So basically you think that all previous warming and cooling trends are different than now because an alarmist told you so. Answer this, how much warming since the 1950's is natural? You can't because it is ignored in favor of the current hysteria.

 

Well, we have, as they say in court, substance. We know that at the highest level of academic review that only one prevailing set of facts were chosen. That isn't science. And clearly, that method spawned the current ecosystem of climate science we find ourselves dealing with today. I find it interesting though, that you'd not worry about the effect of the so very few here when traditionally, your voice has always been alarmed at the impact of the so very few elsewhere in our economy. Seems, well, dissonant.

 

No, I think this warming trend is different because, when I ask scientists about it, they are able to show me where it is different. The links I provided earlier provide a lot of explanation why. For one thing, nighttime temps are rising faster than daytime temps and winter temps are rising faster than summer temps, which is what we should expect if something were "trapping" in heat energy and slowing down its dissipation. We can even look at the wavelengths of light being reflected back to determine which elements are responsible for this "trapping." Or course, your case clearly has nothing to do with facts and you seem to avoid them at every turn, so I don't expect that to change now. But something something alarmist something something hysteria. Yeah, surely parroting that a few more times is a replacement for facts. That's the ticket.

 

Specifically which emails are you taking issue with?

And the internet doesn't use a significant amount of energy, and if we didn't use the internet, then no action would be taken to stop this issue. This is like attacking FDR for getting into WWII to end the war (killing for peace). What we are proposing is to move our energy to alternative sources, not to use no energy at all.

 

The consensus is increased solar activity and reduced volcanic activity which matches up pretty well with the cause of the LIA as well since it was a decrease in solar activity and increase in volcanic activity which were significant contributing factors.

Note that solar activity has been declining since 1960 and volcanic activity has slightly increased and yet the Earth continues to warm. In fact, the rate at which the Earth is warming has accelerated nearly in lockstep with accelerated rate of decline in solar output. Clearly solar output and volcanic activity are not the primary factors involved in THIS particular era of climate change.

 

I'm pretty sure we've gone over this before. There was no conspiracy or collusion to fraudulently alter data. Several independent investigations cleared all parties of wrong doing. Also, I suspect you don't actually understand what the two main phrases in those emails were even referring to. This is a test. In your own words describe the meaning and context behind "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline".

 

These aren't like your typical denier blog posts. These blogs are ran by experts and they already cite their sources.

 

What a load.... No other no plant life based life form is responsible for absorption, by your definition. Similarly, your 30% concentration number is just a guess, and not even a good one. From that, your derivative 100% of the increase is laughable. As in, undocumented supposition that has zero demonstrative example. None. Zero. Statistical correlation isn't causality, and you know it. So, absent sufficient data, you can hand job yourself all day, but it still doesn't mean that you're accurate, or correct.

More, here's the kicker, as a qualitative evaluation, are living things better or worse off in a climate that you benchmark as "optimal" based on the observations of 1865? Or, for that matter, 1960. I care not, are you still going to suggest that the world is better for all life then, than now? The dirty little secret here is that a warmer world allows life to thrive. So why be so stingy?