US Defence Secretary James Mattis says climate change is already destabilising the world

Here's the thing - People who accept AGW as a fact, in particular the climatologists, DO recognize those variables. They can also measure those variables and determine the likelihood that they are playing an impact on the current climate change.

Here is a helpful graph which tracks the data for a lot of those variables over time, and compares them to the increase in temperatures which have occurred in the same time period.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

The short answer, as you should know, are the increases in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from human induced pollution.

 

The world is overpopulated. GW will reduce the population and a new, weather-resistant man will emerge from the ashes. So relax.

 

Correlation does not imply causation. That's all you have. How about the almost identical rise from 1900 to 1940 without the rise in CO2?

 

Nobody except perhaps a small minority of fringe nuts are telling you to sell your cars, cut off your electricity, and to stop using energy for heat. However, folks ARE asking that we stop basing energy policy on how much money it will make for a small minority of private citizens. The Earth is our home, our only one for the forseeable future, so what folks are pushing for is essentially the same as asking that we not smoke as many cigarettes in our home because we're only hurting ourselves. Crack more windows, cut down on the smoking and for God's sake, stop opposing renewable alternative energy sources because it's not profitable for people who aren't even you.

 

In the last 10 years while inflation is at a near standstill, my electricity cost has gone from $0.08 cents a kWh to $0.18 cents a kWh. When others are paying the freight for their desired "renewable alternative energy sources" for themselves and not forcing me to pay for it WITH them you might have a point.

 

Thank you for demonstrating a post which does not provide any intellectual contribution.

 

If I understand correctly
You are saying theses factors could be causing warming
AND
that for some reason, all the various climate models have neglected to incorporate these impacts into their models?

You are saying that "warmists" are generally unaware of climate changes that extend back mellenea?

You are saying that modelers and scientists have not addressed what you observe as inconguence between the co2 record and the temperature records?


Fwiw
Sceptics seem to argue that warmists allege that co2 is the only or primary driver of climate
Is that what you are saying?

 

Correlation does imply causation, but it does not prove causation.

And no, I have the collective opinion of the relevant experts in this field and a non-dissenting opinion from every recognized group of national or international scientists on the planet.

What do you have?

 

FYI: Solar activity is not included in the models. The models can't even tell us the climate sensitivity to CO2.

 

So all you have is a logical fallacy.

FYI: Correlation does not imply causation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

No, I have is the casual usage of the word "imply." From your source:

And you also forgot to mention the collective opinion of roughly 97% of the relevant experts and the non-dissenting opinion of every recognized group of national or international scientist in the world.

 

Why would I repeat a useless and false percent or bath in your logical fallacies. You should attempt to actually look into it and see what is really going on instead of being told what to think and mindlessly repeating it.

 

He has the Koch brothers ,Exxon,Shell etc.

 

I am well aware the source of the 97% claim. It is 4 distinct studies, all published in peer-reviewed journals, all using different methodologies. I have read all of the studies and I understand the limitations and criticisms of the various studies. I have also read the authors' responses to those criticisms.

I stand by the 97% number. But you're free to try and raise a point that I haven't considered.

You're also free to try and find one recognized group of national or international scientists that maintain a dissenting opinion with regards to AGW.

 

Basically only two, Cook and the one that asked only two questions, do you think it has warmed since 1900 and do you think man contributes.

The others are basically rehashed Cook which is not a survey of scientists but a survey of peer review abstracts which do not tell what a scientist thinks and included an abstract on camping stoves. Actual surveys of actual scientists come in much much lower.

You can stand by the number all you want and you will still be wrong.

Continued use of logical fallacies does not bode well for your understanding of this.

BTW, which 'relevant' scientists do you believe? The ones you agree with or the ones you don't?

 

You are fundamentally incorrect. All of the studies that relied on abstracts ALSO included a survey of the various authors. The results of the surveys were consistent with the findings from the abstract review.

 

Here is a link to the Ipcc 2007 report
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Section 9 appears to consider radiative forcing

Solar Changes due to orbital changes can be studied and their past and future influence can therefore be studied

Solar activity due to things like sunspots cannot easily be included in modeling past climate changes since there is no way to measure ancient sun spots
BUT
We do have data fo the last 40 years and so can figure out whether solar activity maps onto observed climate variation. In a nutshell, solar activity data would generally indicate cooling, not warming
And therefore would not account for recent warming

 

FYI
For coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate models (e.g. CMIP5) the climate sensitivity is an emergent property: it is not a model parameter, but rather a result of a combination of model physics and parameters. By contrast, simpler energy-balance models may have climate sensitivity as an explicit parameter.

From wiki on climate sensitivity


You can think of it like the relationship between calories consumed and your weight. Can you measure calorie consumption and exactly predict your weight...no.
But, all things being equal, increase calories correlate with increased weight

 

How do they relate to today? Are they relevant? Can you prove they are consistent and relate to man and the changes of today?

Temperature changes over the course of 40 years isn't a good measuring stick for geological time. The earth is over 4 billion years old.

Scientific data has been called into question because it may have been manipulated. It would make sense to manipulate the data to increase the funding for your cause or to advance your political agenda.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

 

LOL, the Cook effort started with over 12,000 abstracts and they threw out most of them to come up with the fictitious 97%. More like 3%. You should notice the other duplications are all created by activists.

 

You mean the almost 20 year long hiatus.

 

I know it is not a parameter but the models cannot give what CO2 sensitivity is which is the most critical element in the hypothesis. A number of other critical elements of the hypothesis are absent, like the warmth showing in the troposphere first. Since the result is so open ended everything from weather to bee health to continued California drought (now ended) is being blamed on climate change as if it is a known entity.

 

They could be basing everything on a lie. How dangerous is that?

Didn't we just go through all that with Hillary Clinton in the election? Sheeeeeeeesh.

 

I am not entirely sure what you mean
Do you mean x amount of co2 increase will result in y amount of temperature increase?

No, the critical element in the hypothesis is the demonstrable physical characteristics of co2 as a greenhouse gas. If you put two clear insulated containers in the sun... one filled with normal air, and the other filled with 100% co2.... will they have the same temp?

There are lots of unanswered questions on just about every subject imaginable

Are you saying that this subject requires 100% of questions answered with absolute certainty?

No sensible person thinks that the impacts of climate change can be known with absolute certainty...

But IF the climate is warming (for any reason)... that warming will almost certainly have a wide variety of large and small collateral impacts


And, imo, the uncertainty of climate change is among its greatest risks. We simply do not, and cannot know how it will come out (if the warmists concerns are correct). It is like me suggesting that you ingest a chemical.... it may be innocuous, or maybe not. Do you want to take that risk?

 

Here is more information for you on the supposed hiatus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

Suffice it to say that many is good reason to conclude that the supposed hiatus was simply natural variation around a long term trend that continues