Climate Change denial vs History

Where do I find this documentation and how much lower will the temperature be ??

 

The Nasa AGW page and it will be lower. Exact numbers are not required in MOST of science

 

There is plenty in the study of climate change that is still unknown. The relative effect of land use versus fossil fuel usage for one. Too many want to jump on the fuel usage, but the math says that land use, and the resultant destruction of plant life is much more important. But that would not put the blame on the developed western countries, and is politically not what the "green" community want. And then the larger question, what to do? Mitigation of the side effects is likely much more efficient than trying to stop the increase in CO2. But that is not politically popular either.

 

I know a few years ago the climate models did not work in reverse. In other words, they could not "predict" the past. If your model can not predict what you know happened, it is worthless.

 

Uh Oh. One of the scary alarmist claims has vanished! The western Antarctica pennensula is now cooling, not warming.

 

In the second half of the 20th century, “the place that’s warmed the most was the Antarctic Peninsula,” said John Turner, a researcher with the British Antarctic Survey. “It’s a real hotspot of warming across the Earth.”

Now, however, Turner and a team of fellow scientists with the survey are out with a rather unexpected new finding in the journal Nature — one likely to be seized on by climate change skeptics, doubters and deniers. Since about 1998, the research finds, the Antarctic Peninsula has reversed this famous trend and cooled down again, and done so fairly significantly.

Yet Turner stresses this doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening — only that natural variability in the region is quite large, and has recently kicked into gear for rather complex reasons. “This switch from a very very marked warming to a modest cooling is purely a local factor, and not saying anything like ‘global warming has stopped,’ ” Turner said.

Indeed, the Antarctic Peninsula has still warmed in the long run, said Eric Steig, an Antarctic researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle — whose comment on the study accompanies its publication in Nature on Wednesday. Two decades of reversal aren’t enough to change that. So it’s important to keep a sense of perspective.

“It hasn’t cooled nearly as much as it had warmed before,” Steig said

 

Bwahahaha! Yes Virginia, cooling means warming. Of course it just has to be warming, even though it is cooling.

 

A. Local events do not disprove GLOBAL events

B. No one ever claimed warming would be linear. In fact very little in nature is exactly linear

C. This region is still warmer than it was despite this recent cooling

 

Why don't you tell us all how much lower it will be ?? A reasonable estimate will do - to the nearest tenth of a deg C. And what will be the actions needed and CO2 reduction to achieve this ?? This is the entire problem with alarmism. There is nothing to be alarmed about because these simple questions cannot be answered.

 

I already answered this

 

It is estimated that the Paris agreement, if followed and that is highly questionable with all the coal burning power stations being built by China and India, would reduce the increase in temperature based on the models by 2100 by 0.2c. Total win, right?

 

Estimated by you? LOL

 

Of course not but no amount of fact will affect your belief in alarmist propaganda.

 

No amount of propaganda....I fixed it for you

 

You absolutely did not. And no other alarmist has as well. We can't even get one to opine on what they believe the climate sensitivity of CO2 is.

 

Estimated by the MAGICC climate model simulator. Go ahead and play around with it.

https://www.cato.org/blog/current-w...ndy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator

 

So you are saying we would slow the increases. Sweet

 

The model shows that politically viable changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations have no significant effect on global average temperature.

 

Questioning Global warming orthodoxy is the new heresy.

 

And now we get towards the end of the Climate Denier Dance

First it's not happening
Then it's happening but not caused by man
Then it's caused by man but it's not nearly as bad as claimed
Then yes it is serious but there's nothing we can do
Then We COULD have done something but now it's too late

Lather Rinse Repeat

 

And then there is the truth. Humans most likely contribute to global warming because of CO2 emissions. Very very few argue that it is not happening and that humans contribute. But very very few argue that humans are entirely or mostly responsible for global warming.

In your progression denial is skepticism about the alarmist position that all global warming since 1950 is caused by humans. Another proof of denial is to ask questions on the benefits and costs.

 

You accused me of not having complete knowledge. Why would you accuse me of that if it were not because you claim "complete" knowledge? Anyway... don't have it... don't need it. Especially because my arguments are epistemological. Which is actually the only type of argument that should matter to anybody other than climatologists.

As for your question, it says that it's the cause of AGW (thereby the "A" for "Anthropogenic"). Reference to all the studies. Narrowing it down depends on what type of information you want. There are three working groups. Most likely you're looking for reports by Working Group 1. And probably the earlier ones (most recent one was the 5th, I think). Because, since AGW itself is settled and has not been a point of contention within the scientific community for a long time, their efforts are now focused on the consequences. Mostly Climate Change.

 

I have no idea what any of this is. If they were supposed to be references to peer-reviewed studies, I'm afraid you forgot to include the links.

 

Of what science are you speaking? Nobody thinks that the climate is remaining static. Such a belief would be foolish. The question people are trying to have answered is why is the climate changing? What percentage of the change that's taking place is due to human activity? Because here's the thing: science knows that around 350 million years ago, the earth's climate was going through a change very similar to what we are seeing today. (If you like, I can point you to some of the literature). So what does science have to say about this? And no, not your politics. Science.