Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

You are now using a minority opinion from nearly 50 years ago as a reason to dismiss a massive majority opinion today. Does that make any ****ing sense?

And that's great that you found one peer reviewed paper that confirms what you already believe. There are literally thousands which get published every year that disagree.

Here are several contained at the NOAA website in this subject: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

But let me delve into your thinking here: do you think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Do you deny the concept of a greenhouse gas? Do you think the current warming trend is explained by any other factor than the increased in CO2 concentration?

 

There is literally a link to the actual science in the OP.

Read it before pounding the sand.

 

Neither says we have 12 years to live.

AOC is quoting some anonymous (and wrong) constituent and Beto is saying that scientists report our window for taking drastic steps if we want to avoid some of the worst outcomes is 12 years.

 

Where is your model?

 

My three?

1) Increases in CO2 concentration are the one known potential factor that most closely matches the observed warming and no other known potential factors (orbital variations, solar intensity, asteroids, etc.) come close.

2) The isotopes for the CO2 found in the atmosphere matches the isotope for CO2 which gets created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

3) Tens of thousands of experts from across the geopolitical landscape and who study this issue from tens of thousands of points of view have concluded that humans are the single biggest contributor to global warming.

 

Here's an article on 10 animals (thousands of species) which are threatened by AGW.

 

Read this and educate yourself...

Climate Model Sensitivity with Respect to Parameters and External Forcing
https://www.intechopen.com/books/to...th-respect-to-parameters-and-external-forcing

 

There's no proof that AGW exist.

 

Of course they did.

 

You have nothing. Only opinion and correlation. You don’t understand what scientific proof is.

 

Name three that have gone extinct.

 

Observation. History.

I’m not sure I understand your question. But my point was the Chinese government doesn’t care about it’s people. It will chew them up and spit them out when they are no longer needed. The idea China is going to become responsible for the sake of its citizens is not logical.

The Chinese are not that stupid to waste resources like that.

It doesn’t all come in one day. Natural thaws cause floods too.

It is spread out over time. Do you know what happens with water infiltration and release when biodiversity increases as a result of warmer temperatures and more liquid precipitation? You can’t look at each metric in isolation. These are complex systems with many parts working in concert. Saying snow is good and rain is bad is much too simplistic.

Anyway, it appears snowfall is increasing again. It’s interesting to me that snowfall decreased significantly where I live through the ‘80’s and 90’s as well as in the Himalayas, and the last couple years have seen huge snowfall amounts there as well as my area. Don’t know what that means, but it’s interesting to think about the implications of the trends and breaking out of trends in such a dramatic fashion.

I don’t think we should presume change is good or bad without examination from all sides. I certainly don’t want to take someone else’s word one way or the other when that person has something to gain.

 

Yes, I went through all that with another member a while back. It’s an interesting theory, but without actually knowing how many species exist today, and how many existed in the past, neither background rates or current rates are anything more than barely educated guesses.

Does it sound silly at all to say I should get emotional over 10 mammalian extinctions over a 1,000,000 year period?

 

No, it is a link to computer models and opinions of hacks. No actual science.

 

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post — 88 years ago!

 

....ahhh... right....must be me.

Now I remembered why I dont normally see or respond to your posts.

 

No, it does not. Losing those mammals to something avoidable like human based actions is a tragedy. Mammals are also a pretty select genre of animals and if they are going extinct at that rate, you can expect thousands of other species going extinct as well. And it is not silly to be concerned about the loss of those species on their relevant ecosystems and food chains.

There are studies which note upwards of 50% of currently known animal species are at risk of being threatened/going extinct by 2100.

 

What is an example of relevant "actual science?"

 

....and?

I'm sorry. That is too snarky.

A newspaper article regarding a localized weather event from 1922 is simply not very relevant to the types of large scale analysis and data collection that is being discussed today. Indeed, it is only one data point among trillions.

 

I’m sorry, but after 3.5 billion years of constant change, and with 99.9% of species now extinct, I just can’t get worked up about this. Look where we are as a planet and as our species. Why do you want to stop advancement now? Isn’t it a little egotistical for you to decide to stop the process at this point? Certainly silly.

 

It is a false choice to pretend that our only two options are 1) Stop the process or 2) Permit mass extinctions to continue. That's implies that we shouldn't engage in actions like the endangered species act.

Also, I get the desire to minimize the threat by referencing the entire history of the planet, even though the modern human has existed for only like 1/400th of that timeline. But it is really disenguous to pretend the other 399/400 portions of Earth's timeline is relevant. The current extinction rate is not caused by an asteroid or a mass oxygen event, it is caused by humans.

It is similar to using the entire earth's timeline to dismiss the current warming. Yes, the Earth used to be warmer 100 million years ago, but why would you want to live in the ecosystem or climate from 100 million years agio.

 

Who’s dismissing warming? I’m not dismissing anything. I’m just not intimidated. And why do you think humans are so special? We aren’t any more significant in the grand scheme than asteroids.

 

Where is the proof ?? We have had 9 previous warmings in the Holocene. Over half of the have occurred at a higher rate and reached a higher maximum temperature. All of these occurred at constant CO2 concentration. Where is the proof that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the current global warming ??

All you have listed are opinions. The AGW theory fails the scientific method test.

 

I have no idea where you got "supposedly" from, I was in Antarctica then, one of our guys got a serious sunburn laying out on the wing of a "sky pig" at Willy Field, and not for very long, because it is fracking Antarctica. It doesn't cause global cooling, only regional changes, the lack of it causes skin cancer.