Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Never rely upon a Youtube video to explain a conspiracy theory.

 

There is no such thing as the proper and correct temperature for the Earth.

 

We obviously are pumping a lot more into our atmosphere than we did when we had 18 million (high figure) Native Americans, that is a change.

I could say that my bike is running rough, and not have any change in C02, but probably just need to do my valve clearances or change spark plugs... Other data we can not have about the past does not negate data we have now. If C02 has not changed, and it got warmer, then we would look elsewhere for an explanation.

When greenhouse gasses go up, and we are doing it, and you can't give us anything but spam as an explanation for higher global temps, you can't convince me that because it got warmer in the past, with no explanation of why, that this is just like the past.

 

You are absolutely beyond spouting nonsense if you claim that the climate experts refuse interviews or refuse to conduct debates on their findings

 

If you are capable of identifying the reasons for the previous warmings and coolings (and we can), then you can analyze whether those explanations apply to the current warming trend.

 

No, I did not.

 

In this thread? Where? I've seen posts that say it may lead to future extinctions.
There may have been species which have gone extinct in the Brazilian rainforest or on Kangaroo Island but if you refuse to accept that increased severity of wildfires is a result of climate change we're just going around in circles. Likewise with the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and massive die out of coral.
So I'm not going to fall into your trap of naming 3.
Nor am I going to ask you for evidence that no animals have gone extinct as a result of climate change for the same reason.

 

No we can't identify all the reasons for previous events. We still don't know what climate changes was happening while Zeus was fracking his wife in Homer's work, and why Venus came up but the Sun was decapitated for the Mayan ancestors, or in essence three different civilizations (see Joshua) reported the earth standing still.

 

Sweet. So why was there a warming in the mid 500-1200s? What caused this? conversely, what happened in about or around 1580 that led to the little ice age. Do show your work.

 

CO2 is a gas which absorbs and re radiates infrared energy.

 

Then you have a faith based belief that the current warming is the result of increasing human CO2 emissions. The current warming is one the approximate 1000 year cycle of the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, and the other 6 warmings and coolings.

 

What are the causes of the previous warmings and coolings.

 

You can't prove a negative. That's what the entire alarmist narrative is based on.

BTW the so-called bleaching of Coral reefs has nothing to do with global warming.

 

Because it is a really stupid question.
What temperature increase will lead to serious consequences for life as we currently know it is a better one.
What feedback loops will methane emissions from defrosting permafrost caused by climate change is another.
There is no ideal temperature but there is plenty of evidence that a continuous rise is not a good thing.

 

It was warmer during the last inter-glacial. Man survived just fine.

 

It is more of a faith based belief to believe previous warmings (thinking a stick to measure Nile floods is as accurate as today's equipment) are in any way related to current events.

 

QED.

 

Orbital Variations and Solar Intensity are the most prominent factors.

 

The Co2 centric hypothesis is not falsifiable. The amount of warming by natural causes is unknown. If you cannot determine that then you cannot determine how much is man made.

 

Amazing you are still denying such common knowledge

Let’s examine how Cook et al reached this very precise figure.

First, they searched the abstracts of 11,944 articles in peer-reviewed journals from the years 1991 to 2011 which included the terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. At the very least, then, their conclusion is three or four years out of date.

Are 97% of scientists really in agreement on climate change? Don’t bet on it.

It is the season of commencement addresses. A season when a generation with one foot in the grave offers advice to a generation with one foot in the nursery. A season of platitudes and conventional wisdom. A season of warm self-congratulation and fuzzy wisdom.

So when US secretary of state John Kerry told graduates at Boston College on 19 May that there is a scientific consensus on climate change, you wouldn’t expect him to footnote his sources. But he seized upon a specific figure – that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists believe that climate change threatens the future of the planet – and projected it as the Gospel truth.

His boss, President Barack Obama, was even more trenchant in his description of the problem. In a tweet on 17 May, he said: ‘Ninety-seven per cent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, manmade and dangerous. Read more: OFA.BO/gJsdFp.’

Ninety-seven per cent is a very specific number. Where does it come from?

Happily, Mr Obama did footnote his source: an article published last year in the journal Environmental Research Letters written by an Australian scientist at the University of Queensland, John Cook, and several colleagues. They were even more specific: ‘97.1 per cent [of scientists] endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.’


Based on this article (and some others), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest non-government general science membership organisation and the publisher of Science, a leading scientific journal, has launched a campaign, ‘What We Know’, to convince the public that there is virtual unanimity among scientists.

I have little doubt that many scientists agree that climate change is (a) real and (b) caused by man (anthropogenic). But do 97 per cent of them really agree on both propositions? Let’s do a reality check here. On what issue do academics reach 97 per cent agreement other than that they are being underpaid? That the sun will rise tomorrow? No, some of them will say, because the sun doesn’t rise; the earth revolves. No, because we can only assert that it is probable, not certain. No, because we might be living in a multiverse where the sun will not rise on 28 May, etc, etc.


Let’s examine how Cook et al reached this very precise figure.

First, they searched the abstracts of 11,944 articles in peer-reviewed journals from the years 1991 to 2011 which included the terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. At the very least, then, their conclusion is three or four years out of date.

Second, they sorted the abstracts into four piles: no position on anthropogenic global warming, endorsement, rejection and uncertainty. The biggest pile (66.4 per cent) was no position. Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent ‘endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming’.

This already sounds a bit odd. This is not what the public understands by a consensus. Mr and Mrs Average are entitled to imagine that 97.1 per cent agreement means that 97.1 per cent of scientists voted on a ballot proposal. But no one ever voted. Instead, volunteers recruited from the Skeptical Science website winnowed the articles and interpreted the often arcane language of scientific abstracts. Since the slogan of this website is ‘rebutting global warming misinformation’, the volunteers’ interpretations were bound to be skewed in favour of the ‘consensus’.


Aware of this problem, Cook et al sought the opinions of the authors themselves. This could be construed as a kind of ballot measure. There were 29,083 authors listed on the 11,944 papers. Of these, only 8,547 were sent an email asking for their opinion. Of these, only 1,189 responded. Using this method, Cook and his team found that an even higher proportion of them agreed that climate change was real and man-caused – 97.2 per cent. But notice that only four per cent of the authors ‘voted’. A ballot measure with a four per cent turnout is not what Mr and Mrs Average mean by a ‘consensus’.

Finally, Obama rashly added the word ‘dangerous’ to his tweet. Not even Cook and his colleagues from Skeptical Science dared to assert that 97 per cent of scientists believe that global warming is ‘dangerous’. Perhaps many of them do, but exactly how many is known only to God and Barack Obama.


This is common knowledge Legal. Why perpetuate yet another fantasy claim with no factual backing?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2014/05/28/global-warming-the-97-fallacy/

 

Some combination Orbital Variations, Solar Intensity, Asteroids, Volcanic Activity, Deforestation.

 

Take it up with NASA and the multiple other studies that used different methodologies to reach the 97% consensus claim.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Also, next time - just post the headline and a link. I do not need to see every word from the article at "spiked-online.com" that you believe is absolutely the only valid source.

 

They are existence proof that similar warming periods occurred with no increases in CO2.

 

What was the cause of my week off down in Christchurch, when our HF dependent planes couldn't fly? I could tell you, but you should be able to figure it out. The problem with figuring out past events is a lack of advanced instruments and data. We know what we are doing now, we don't know everything about what was happening then. It's like trying to figure out what English Sweating Sickness was or Caligula's brain fever.

 

Too bad they don't break it down to prove it as I did.

Next time try reading your source before you post it.

actively publishing climate scientists agree

Not all scientists or even all climate scientists Legal. Read first then post.