The religion of climate change.

The reason I think that is that's where the facts lead, and scientists are willing to talk about those facts while denialists engage in "arguments" like this.

The hypothesis fits observation better than any other hypothesis.

Models based on the ~3 degree figure I cited earlier have fit very well with observation

Lol, okay, now I'm pretty sure you are joking. You had me there for a minute. You do realize you were the one who brought up policy, not me, right? . . . right?

Except AGW is extraordinarily inconvenient for my politics. And you were the one who brought up policy, not me.

I already have. You should give it a try some time. I can give you links if you want the facts. You might want to consider the fact, as "solar scientists" have, that temps have increased even during solar dimming and that the nighttime/daytime summer/winter pattern I mentioned earlier proves that the current warming trend isn't due to solar output. If it were, those numbers would be reversed.

Yes, the ones who deny objective reality are deniers.

Yeah, I've already done my homework bud. Sorry the facts didn't pan out in favor of your political beliefs.

 

It has... do tell. In fact, the work has not been done, and you cannot when pressed cite ANY study that suggests this. Period.

 

NO - you have one instance of fraud. We have a thousand instances of observable fact to back up a global warming situation.

People like yourself try to pretend that since "it's happened before," that there is no need to prepare ... but hell, dude - when it happened before, there were not 4 billion people living in the impact zone and it was a change that took centuries - not decades. BIG difference.

 

Laughable. Run a data center, or two, and get back to me on the total energy consumption of just one, them multiply that by millions of times to reflect what the internet is, and how much it consumes. Your personal use may not require a lot of resources, but in total, the hundreds of millions or billions of users actually does have an impact. As we become larger and larger consumers of data and data services, this will only every increase. There is zero way to avoid this.

 

I won't give you just 1 study. I'll give you the link to 30,000.

IPCC AR5: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/

 

For all coastal planning only tide gauges are used. No tide gauge shows any acceleration of sea level but all show an almost constant rise from long before CO2 is supposed to affect warming which would be expected coming out of a cooling period.

For instance, if I were in Wisemar Germany, at the age of 65 I would experience a sea level rise of about 3.8 inches. The rise during that time is no faster or slower than the rise back to the 1850's. That is a rise of +1.43 +/- 0.11 mm/yr.

http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Wismar&c_date=1866/11-2019/12&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3

Solar scientists are predicting a cooling period due to solar activity, which is not just TSI. Only TSI is used in the models.

This means that by 2100, and only if the solar scientists are wrong, gives a ~5 inch rise in sea level in Wisemar Germany, not the hysterical predictions by the alarmists of anywhere from 6 to 30 feet.

 

Nah. These are the contentions. Feel free to address:
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

Why would anyone "conceal data", treat as a "political cause", or admit that the data is "weak or dependent on deliberate data manipulation". That has, and continues to be, the model for AGW.

 

I never said that.

No, it's a fact backed up by many lines of evidence from different people using wildly different techniques.

Biomass thrives on CO2 if that's what you're asking. But that's not the issue. The issue is that it also causes the geosphere to warm. The beneficial effects from photosynthesis are more than offset by the negative effects of the warming.

 

Sure they did... just pull out the citations, and then quote the actual science that underpins the assertions made in the blogs... I'll wait.

 

So you go to the extreme predicts rather than the general numbers of around a 1.5 to 3 foot rise.

By the way - if your hypothesis is that scientists can be driven to lie by monetary gain - then in order for you not to be a hypocrite, you have to state that ALL scientists can lie - not just those you disagree with. Just telling ya.

 

They cannot show you how much is natural because they don't know how much is natural. That is all guess work.

Two things recently that may be proof of what the solar scientists are saying, the stratosphere is warming, and the atmosphere is shrinking. Both counter to the current hypothesis and may be reacting to the reduced solar activity.

 

Fun stuff here. Show the "negative effects" whatever those are. Make a list. We should discuss it.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking me here. Are you saying you don't understand how to find the citations? Different sites do it differently. For example Skeptical Science typically puts them in blue font with the author and year. Like Tripali 2009 or Ghosh 2003. Scholars and Rogues did something similar except they even list where in the publication the salient point comes from. Real Climate does hyperlinks inline but then has a References section at the bottom.

 

Michael Mann made an ass of himself by claiming the 30 foot rise and corrected it to somewhere around 6-10 feet.

AR5 claims between 1.5 to 6 meters or about 5 to 20 feet.

Another silly claim. Where did I ever say that scientists lie for monetary gain. I will wait for you to show me. If anything the true believers claim any scientist that does not follow the party line are deniers and lying for money.

 

The stratosphere is cooling and has been for decades.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2018BAMSStateoftheClimate.1

 

Basically cooling has slowed down and currently warmed significantly. This would defy the projection of increased cooling with increased CO2.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL078035

https://watchers.news/2019/01/02/sudden-stratospheric-warming-ssw-january-2019/

 

Right, but only a tiny percent of internet usage is devoted to climate change, and the internet is only 2% of all CO2 emissions. You really want to throw us into a technological dark age just to save on 2% of CO2 emissions? Even if we in the west don't use it, people in China and India will just pick up where we left off and take the technological lead. In addition the internet and computers may hold the key to solving our climate issues. The internet also replaces driving and physical products which all have a carbon footprint, and make things more efficient which reduces our carbon footprint. The solution isn't us not using energy and moving back into caves, its changing the sources our society uses for energy.

 

Their 2100 prediction is about 1 meters.

Their 2300 prediction is about 3 meters.

Their 2500 prediction is about 6 meters.

All of these are for high ( > 700 ppm) CO2 scenarios.

 

All based on models and not on actual observed science. As I said before, in Germany the prediction based on the constant rise in tide gauges is ~5 inches, not 5 feet.

 

Nah. I'm saying it's your set of assertions. I read the citations, the citations don't support your assertions. Feel free to demonstrate how you think they do. I'll wait.

 

Who cares what percentage of the internet is devoted? It has to all be there for you to discuss it. All of it. Application services aside, the highways (routing) connections all have to be there. If they are not, you don't have internet. Basic stuff here. Berkeley says that it takes something like 70 billion KWHs (kilwat hours) to run the internet. Just the internet. All so you have a outlet to profess your faith.

 

That's not what that paper is saying. By the way, here is the stratospheric temperature as stated by them. Notice that like the lower troposphere there are pauses and even brief periods of warming, but the long term trend is unquestionably and undeniably down. By the way, do you notice anything that jumps out at you in these graphs? Say the warming blips at 1982 and 1991? Do you know what significant events happened here?

Sudden Stratospheric Warming events are weather phenomenon not unlike hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, etc. They are events with small temporal and spatial domains.

By the way, SSW events have been linked to disruptions in the wave patterns in the troposphere. The event usually has a lag of about 2 weeks or so. This is why forecasters are expecting a pattern change in the troposphere around mid-January. Sometimes (though not always) this can lead to cold and snowy conditions in the United States. Snow lovers like SSW events because it generally leads to higher odds of snowfall east of the Rocky Mountains.

 

Really?

The models and an extended satellite data set comprised of SSU with the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit‐A show weaker global stratospheric cooling over 1998–2016 compared to the period of intensive ozone depletion (1979–1997).

 

Just an observation.... 1979 is quite arbitrary as a beginning point. True, it is the data from which data collection started, but it clearly isn't the beginning. It makes for cool graphs, but it has zero if any real value as an evaluator tool. So here's the thing. 0 K is like -243 C. are we saying that the temp of space itself is falling as 0 K would indicate the absence of all heat.... And wouldn't that be an interesting explanation..... Feel free to explain what K means....

 

K is Kelvins. The temperature is expressed as an anomaly such that ΔT = T0 - Tn where T0 is the initial temperature and Tn is the temperature at time n. It's important to note that all temperatures are expressed as ΔT so 0 means no change in temperature.

Why do you think our satellite datasets have zero real value?