Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Consensus is not science. And any poll that claims 97% of anything (let alone 99%) is obviously 100% fake.

I mean, are you that easily fooled that you would actually believe that 97 or 99% of any group would accept something? Anything? That is a classic tactic used in Marxist nations and dictatorships to claim they are universally loved and have the right to do whatever they want. All you are doing is once again using the "appeal to authority fallacy", and it is not even a real authority but one completely made up.

 

Those projections in the graph above are virtually all of the instrumental ECSs between 2002 and 2020 that I could find and show an ECS mostly between 1.5C and 2C (lower than IPCC at 3C). If you find more let me know.

 

Yes, the older IPCC AR studies were mostly in the 1.5 to 2 degree C range. It appears the newer studies have raised the projection, probably due to higher recent temperature increases and amplification factors. However, for the sake of argument, let's look at the 2 deg C range.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3278/...ding-climate-risks-at-two-degrees-of-warming/

NASA Study Reveals Compounding Climate Risks at Two Degrees of Warming

If global temperatures keep rising and reach 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, people worldwide could face multiple impacts of climate change simultaneously...

The researchers found that more than a quarter of the world’s population could experience an additional month of severe heat stress each year compared to the middle of the 20th century (1950-1979). High temperatures and drought could combine dangerously in places like the Amazon, increasing the risk of wildfire. In the American West, extreme fire weather will likely be more intense and last longer.

I live in the American West, and I can tell you that nobody here wants to see a prolonged, more intense wildfire season. From the above link, there are links to other sites, talking about a 2 deg C. increase, from a more worldly perspective.

 

I tend not to trust NASA partly because they’re a government institution and are politically-subservient to the US government but mainly because I have seen them exaggerating AGW a lot. Here is a video from PragerU explaining various alarmist misconceptions about AGW, with one of them being that global droughts are not increasing, according to a Nature study (Hao et al 2014). Make of it what you will I guess, given NASA saying the opposite.

 

NASA is "untrustworthy"? I see. The above graph doesn't tell much, because droughts are regional. For example the US Mountain West and Alaska are suffering more than other areas. Other areas are experiencing more intense storms and hurricanes, as the atmosphere holds more water when warmer. All told, March was a cooler-than-normal month in the Mountain West. But here is the overall trend that is seen nearly every month - a Global Warming Trend.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/ghcn-gridded-products/#global-maps-select

 

The graph tells us that droughts as a whole are on the decline which I thought you would welcome as good news. The decline in droughts is probably thanks to the increased water vapour.

I am aware that the global temperature is assumed to have been increasing, but the surface-based temperature records show more warming than satellites due to UHI.

Also, many of the latest surface temperature readings from thermometers have been conveniently sited next to the air-conditioning vents of large buildings, runways, busy roads, and such, so I take them with a grain of salt.

https://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-cause-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/

Satellite and radiosonde observations show very little warming since 2005, diverging from the IPCC model predictions, and implying a smaller climate sensitivity.

 

I welcomed your IPCC post, but when you start posting blogs, Quackery- rated No Tricks Zone, and the biased and Low-Fact rated Watts Up with That, I will merely dismiss the post.

 

Dismissing any and all of what they are saying on those grounds, as you are doing, is self-stupefying as it automatically blocks you from receiving what information their point of view might otherwise be able to give you. Prejudging their point of view as worthless and Quackery only deprives you of its value, not anyone else.

 

I find no value in lies, and/or not knowing if something is a lie or not.

 

That is all they ever do. Even as they themselves post from similar blogs. And as always, refuse to actually discuss the topic but appeal to authority and not the actual data.

 

I thought I was meeting him half way by arguing for an ECS of 1.5 to 2C (which I still think is too high). He ignores any information from any source that isn't a big institution.

 

Why would any discerning reader want to peruse something from a sight that is rated QUACKERY or LOW FACT content? Have at it, if that’s what floats your boat.

 

Your fear of the data is apparent.

 

Yes it is…

 

So, I show you a graph which was published by former NASA scientist Roy Spencer and John Christy and you reply by saying that you are “not interested in lies”? Strange. How can you tell if the graph is a lie? What reality-checks have you done on it?

 

No problem. Post it with a reputable source. I’ve seen articles by WUWT that sensationalize the title of a reputable sourced article. They’re simply dishonest. If you insist on using them, at least link to the reputable source.

 

NASA and NOAA continue to sponsor and fund Spencer and Christy's work at UAH.

 

To paraphrase the Romans' rejoinder to Plato, "Who will rate the raters?"

 

I welcome you to use another rating agency. I would also urge you to do your own evaluation of Media Bias Fact Check. Check their rating of MSNBC, CNN and others. I think you'll find them reputable.

 

Why choose that particular period for comparison? Easy: the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s was a three-decade cooling phase that occurred at the same time as rapidly rising CO2. It has now been retroactively removed from surface temperature data records because it was not compatible with the CO2 climate narrative.

 

I have checked their "fact checks" on climate-realist sources and found them to be liars.

 

Just because you don't like the rating doesn't make them "liars". Again check out MSNBC and CNN - you'll probably call them "Truthers" after that.

 

No, but the fact that they lie makes them liars.

I'm not familiar with MSNBC or CNN. I am familiar with climate research.

 

I posted my instrumental ECS graph on Reddit and someone noticed that I had missed some out and misallocated some studies.

So I did it again and included another graph showing the logarithmic decay of CO2 based on an ECS of 1.8C.

At its current concentration, CO2 would be warming at 0.006C per 1ppmv, but it could be much less, if ECS is much less.

 

And of course you know better than all those IPCC Climate Scientists around the world whose mid-range estimate was an ECS of 3C (It also helps to define ECS - The world average temperature increase due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)