Any leader who does not believe in climate change needs mental confinement

Thanks, I'll read it on my computer when I get home, and no cell phones don't show the posting #, but thanks for the info

 

The KEY word is healthy. I had a bypass done in 2011. My doctors (2 of them) told me one baby aspirin daily will help my health. The dose is so low and the aspirin has a protective coating to keep it from hurting my stomach.

 

Doctors recommended it for everyone and now they have reversed themselves on that. I stopped taking it.

 

new cities could include take advantage of climate change.

 

Oh, come on. You know me better than that.

Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
Jones, et. al 2012: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
Anet, et. al. 2013: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/grl.50806
Meehle, et. al. 2013: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/jma/meehl_grand_solar_2013.pdf

I figured 4 might be a good start, but I can post more if I need to.

 

I reviewed the Georg and Stephan , your first citation. They estimated .3C and then said, which doesn't overcome the expected temp increases. Yikes... I hope you really aren't going to hang you hat on that kind of methodology.... Do you suppose they took a stab at the lowest possible outcome, and compared it to the worst possible outcome, and said, whoo hoooo, we're still in bidnus.... I do.

 

Unlike deniers/skeptics I don't hang my hat on any one line of evidence. I always look for the abundance of evidence. That's why I posted multiple lines of evidence. And I can post more if you want me too.

Also, note that Feulner & Rahmstorf's conclusion is that a solar grand minimum would suppress the warming by 0.3C at most with the best guess being 0.1C. Yes, a solar grand minimum will suppress the warming, but not enough to actually stop the warming. And multiple lines of research confirm this. It's not just Feulner & Rahmstorf's research that I'm hanging my hat on. I'm hanging my hat on the abundance of evidence from multiple sources using different techniques. By the way, I happen to think that there is enough evidence to suggest that a solar grand minimum is a real possibility for the near future. Just don't hold your breath thinking that it will stop the warming.

 

Serious question...does this cause you to see all doctors as frauds and make you think twice about visiting a doctor for diagnosis and treatment of future ailments? Does it make you want to get medical advice from a non-expert blogger as opposed to a bona-fide medical professional?

 

It provides a direct link to an example where "settled science" isn't exactly settled. That doesn't mean all doctors suck, it means they rely on others to provide them with the guidance they use to make individual prescription choices. It means those researchers who have systematically propped up the pharma have some real explaining to do. Like how they have so successfully bilked the billions of dollars from duped patients who fervently hoped that the drug would in fact help the out. Doctors aren't the issue here, are they? Do you find that the AMA or the JAMA are the instigators of a lie? Do you suppose that if we investigated those studies finely enough we might find that human nature and greed were also a component of this? I do.

 

Medical science can and has been misled. This is why now, we are looking at "evidence based practice " which means we take as many research papers as we can find, analyse them and give the final weighting. Which is preferable to the alternative. Some twonk telling you that rubbing cow dung into your hair will make you immortal

 

I tire of your straw man false allegation charges that I think all scientist are frauds. Apparently you are out of ammo for honest debate and discussion and have turned to the last desperate attempt of trolling.

 

I did on edit for you.

"Climate science can and has been misled"

 

This is correct. There have been mistakes made. But, that doesn't mean the whole field is tainted. What it means is that the field (like any scientific field) accumulates knowledge as a result of its mistakes. Remember, science is never about laying the golden egg on the first attempt. It's about expanding knowledge in incremental steps with each step yielding less than perfect knowledge. Mistakes are always made along the way.

It's the same with the medical field. Just because you can demonstrate that a mistake has been made in the past that doesn't mean the whole medical industry is a fraud and a hoax. You'll still prefer to go to a surgeon to get your heart bypass performed as opposed to going to some random guy who happen to stay in a Holiday Inn Express the night before. You'll make that decision because you recognize this fact. It's the same with any scientific field. One bad apple does not, in fact, spoil the whole bunch.

 

Glad to see you admit this and now you know why many of us don't want to knee jerk and hysterically react to the latest doomsday scenarios presented by a group with such an oh woops guess we were wrong record.

 

Oh course I admit mistakes. That doesn't mean we're going to wake up one day and say "whoops I guess the Earth wasn't warming afterall". That's not the kind of mistakes that are happening.

And remember, mistakes are a double edged sword. It's just as likely the mistakes mean we are underestimating the warming vs overestimating it. The mistake is making a huge change to the environment and assuming there won't be an unintended consequence.

 

No but you may wake up one morning and say woops I guess man wasn't having any significant effect on climate change. As for your huge change to the environment man's C02 input is really rather small in the scheme of things.

 

Spoken like someone truly ignorant of reality.

If you never burned an ounce of fossil fuels, your climate would still be changing, and glaciers and ice-sheets would still be melting, resulting in sea-levels rising another 30 to 100 feet.

The ice core data proves conclusively that 7 of the 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods were significantly warmer than present. The sole Inter-Glacial Period that was not ended abruptly after 8,000 years for reasons unknown. This Inter-Glacial Period has lasted 4,000 years longer than that one.

It is perfectly normal and reasonable for average global temperatures to increase another 7.8°F to as much as 15.3°F warmer than present, because 7 of the 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods fell within that range, and the previous Inter-Glacial Period was 15.3°F warmer than now.

Which part of the following are you unable to comprehend?

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1933/2016/

8.5°C corresponds to 15.3°F warmer than it is now.

7.5°C corresponds to 13.5°F warmer than it is now.

Temperatures fluctuate wildly on Earth for reasons that are simply not understood.

One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

[emphasis mine]

http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/sur.../ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

Your bizarre misguided false belief that temperatures should not rise any higher than where they are now is totally unsupported by any scientific evidence.

 

Ma

Maybe because instead of putting my money on an eight year old unreference page that says nothing about the current warming

I prefer the well referenced IPCC reports which have not only looked at the evidence but have looked t adaptation and mitigation

Meanwhile back in the real world

Many are worried about what is called the "third pole" of the planet

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-19/climate-change-mining-threaten-tibetan-plateau/10241596

 

You really are going through the denialist playbook aren't you?

Pity then that all of those arguments have already been addressed

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

Science has been right more often than the " guess I will make it up " crowd

 

This is correct. However, none of that would be happening today. That's the difference.

And it all happens for a reason. There are many elements that influence climate. Solar radiation, greenhouse gases, and aerosols are the big 3. And all 3 participate in physical process that follow the same laws of physics in the past as they do today. And the laws of physics don't care who emitted those CO2 molecules. A molecule emitted by man and a molecule emitted by nature will have exactly the same effect on the climate. And we know for an absolute fact that CO2 has a quantifiable effect on the climate via the persistent radiative forcing that results due to the molecule getting its vibrational modes activated photons of a certain frequency. And we have a pretty good idea of the physical processes that are involved in changing the climate in the past and present. The net effect of those big 3 accounts for the largest percentage of them.

We understand these quite well. It's proof positive that the Earth can be both cooler and warmer than it is today. So given an increase in a radiative forcing variable that we know without a shadow of doubt caused warming in the past it is not unreasonable to surmise that same mechanism will also cause warming today. Again, the laws of physics don't care if that variable is driven by natural cycles or human behavior.

It's not fair to say that it's not understood. That's not true at all. We actually have a pretty good idea. It's certainly not fully understood. But that doesn't mean we are completely devoid of any understanding. Remember, scientific knowledge is not binary in the sense that you either have to have 100% perfect knowledge or you have no knowledge at all. The amount of knowledge always lies somewhere in between. And it accumulates in incremental imperfect steps.

I'll let Bowerbird speak for herself. But, scientists (and it's a belief I share as well) do not dispute that temperatures can rise higher than they are now. In fact, we embrace the idea because that's what the abundance of evidence shows. We claim that the exact same processes that caused climate change in the past will continue to cause climate change today. It's this belief born out the abundance of evidence that forces us to acknowledge that human behaviors have activated or altered the rate at which these physical processes are playing out. But, they are still the same physical processes. Human emitted CO2 molecules do not have a magical physics defying property that makes them behave any differently today than they did in the past. The same can be said for aerosol particles.

 

Your link does not work but I have read that article before and it talks around the real point here. It concentrated on man's input over what the source claims is the so called natural amount of C02 and current natural input because the inconvenient truth is in the big picture of how much C02 is in the atmosphere man's contribution is a tiny fraction. They don't address that.

 

Unfortunately current climate science is the guess I will make it up crowd. They get caught time and again but never say die in their goal of proving the AGW hypothesis even though it's scientist job to try and disprove a hypothesis in order to validate it. Science has been turned on it's head and politicized in this area.