Challenge to Democrats/Leftists: If you believe climate change is an existential crisis, prove it

Comparisons of satellite-era measurements to earlier measurements are worthless, as the latter depended on local benchmarks whose elevations relative to Earth's center of mass could not be recorded.

Which is not quite the same as saying the majority of knowledge is on your side.

Figure temperature has momentum, do you?

lol

 

Citation/s please

 

Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.

Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.

Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.

Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'.

Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.

Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available

Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI.

Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible

Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC

Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/16/hide_the_decline__and_more_99574.html

I think your side has the problem with science, n'est-ce pa?

 

Waaaa???

No,

It was “started” back in 1896 by a chap called Svante Arrhenius

 

Nope, this was a NASA guy who brought this forward in the 80s(?). You're a smart cookie, and I'm guessing you know exactly who I'm referencing. But I'll go look up the name for you anyway.... but not now... I'm going to put my feet up and have a bowl right now.

 

There is more mass of water to heat. So it's not like it has momentum it just lags surface temperature.
Wasn't it you that said China was building coal fired power plants at an exponential rate?

 

You DO realise don’t you that this is a ten year old controversy?

Since that time there has been eight investigations - all cleared the participants

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

since then of course there has been the independent Berkeley Earth project which used a different method of data analysis and confirmed the conclusions that earth is warming

http://berkeleyearth.org/

And then there has been the observations of anyone sticking their collective heads outside the basement since each decade has been warmer than the previous

 

Do you know the greenhouse effect of CO2?

 

Yeah and guys of the enormous industrial corporate who tried to discredit him gets billions.

 

Go for it

Your side - whacked out conspiracy theory focussing on one institution in one country

My side - IPCC which has a GLOBAL focus and input from experts from nearly every country in the world, uses data from thousands of research papers published around the world, has hundreds of authors and thousands of reviewers ( I am talking the cumulative of all the reports here) and is internationally recognised

But go ahead and explain how one person working in America alone was able to pull the wool over the eyes of that many people

Oh! And if you doubt how many reviewers there are : this is for just ONE report

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-v.pdf

44 pages of names each page containing more than 30 names

 

But that's not what you said. You said water temp would increase even if CO2 leveled off, which is impossible if CO2 increase causes global warming.

Definitely not.

 

One?
Using the same data-picking technique that your corrupt scientists use, eh?!

This from the girl who thinks humans with atlatls annihilated the wooly mammoth!

^when I saw that nonsense I swore I'd never post with you; I got it right in the first place.

 

Real academic debate should take place within the academic community and experts, not by modern day version of 'snake oil salesmen' appealing to the limited knowledge of those who haven't been properly trained to skew the scales in their favor. The process may not always produce the best results, but it produces better results than any debate judged by non-experts and partisans on either side. To be sure, policing (not the merits or demerits of the scientific arguments) but the process and making sure 'undue influence', 'bias' and 'self-interest' isn't corrupting the scientific debate is appropriate issues for public discourse. And to properly do so, you come up with rules to make sure the avenues for the corruption I mention are limited and the scientific debate isn't stifled or limited by any form of 'orthodoxy'. You make sure any genuine "source of emulation" (a credentialed, tenured, professor in the relevant field or fields) has the 'academic freedom' and the proper support to engage in independent thought and to challenge any prevailing orthodoxy on any issue.

What I specifically don't want to do is to sit in 'judgment' of the scientific merit of the argument on each side. And what I don't find appropriate is inviting other non-scientists to do so . If your point is valid, you should gather your arguments in the format of a scholarly article, have it undergo peer review, and have those points debated by the relevant experts. If the argument has sufficient merit to find endorsement among at least a few genuine "sources of emulation" (people with the requisite academic credentials on the subject), then you point to the 'source of emulation' that endorses those views and his credentials. Those who reject the argument for the public should point to any issues of interest or bias that they believe colors the attitude of the "source of emulation" and the same for any 'source of emulation' on the other side. The arguments on bias and self-interest we can judge properly. The scientific arguments we cannot, not because I cannot follow the logic of someone showing me the trunk of an elephant and pretending that is what an elephant looks like, but because to know what an elephant looks like requires you look at the entire animal and not just its trunk. And that requires a commitment of time and education in the field that people who aren't scientists with the highest credentials would not have.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for people on the side of the alarmist views on climate change to support their argument by citing what they consider the most authoritative, credentialed, and (in terms of bias) most non-political, scholarly and dispassionate voice on their side. And the same for those who oppose the climate change narratives, although one such figure was briefly introduced to me by UprightBiped.

 

there will always be cheaters amongst any group. It simply needs to be rooted out and exposed. That holds true for everyone involved.

First we stop wringing our hands. People rarely make sound decisions in a panic.

I agree, nuclear energy is sustainable, low-emission energy.

Especially in developing nations. That's how we developed too.

But that's not to say that we cannot help them to balance between fossil fuels and alternative energies where applicable.

I'd like to see homes and even businesses where possible go on geothermal.

You dont have the right to decide the size of any family other than your own. Fortunately you don't need to. It is a phenomenon of the human condition that as we are raised out of poverty we simply choose have to have less children. I believe you will find this born out in most/all developed countries.

here we disagree.
I do not believe that the science is settled as to the cause or extent of warming.

I do believe we need to get off fossil fuels forthwith. They are not sustainable. If everything stopped tomorrow, there would be unmitigated chaos. Only a fool would wait until that happens. We need better (read sustainable) energy resources.

coal? I see a smokestack, that's pollution, that's got to go.

amen



I like pragmatism. I find it in this man's perspective. There are things that we can absolutely do and do right away to address reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

We could start tomorrow, if Greenpeace will let us.

 

If Guy McPherson is right we may not need to worry about this for much longer. He has long said that we are currently shielded from the worst effects of our damage to our planet by the amount of rubbish that is up in the sky - this masks the real effect and that when we clean up the planet this will cause the masking to end and far from saving us will destroy us. It is known we do have to clean up the sky. In this respect I had been wondering what climate scientists would say about the effect which would be produced by China, the workhouse of the world, downing tools because of the Coronavirus. I put in some searches but got nothing and then yesterday I noticed he had a new video. He has worked out the effect of the downing of tools in China and it came to a magic Number of 24. He is now convinced that within a very short time days or weeks, we will notice 1 degree of warming - this is on top of the 1.8 degrees which he believes we already have. From this he says we are finished by November we will have lost our habitat.

So.....I guess it is we are finished by November or his theory goes out the window and there is no excuse for anyone holding off doing what is necessary so that we never experience what he fears.

 

Please explain how all those people, and we are talking thousands of experts here, not to mention the entire Denialsphere on the Internet who would wet their collective pants if they could prove some part of the science wrong, how all of those people have been fooled by a couple of people in one institution in one country

As for you weird allegation
https://www.history.com/news/were-humans-responsible-for-killing-off-the-wooly-mammoth

Be told - I rarely post anything I have not researched first

 

Greenpeace is not stopping you

And if you had ever bothered to read this report you would find more that you agree with than you disagree with

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

 

Water temperature would continue to rise even if CO2 leveled off. Does your lake freeze on the first cold day, or thaw on the first warm one?
O.K. on China. Do you get the point?

 

Negatory, good buddy! You are confused (understandable, because 1 degree C keeps popping up). From September of 2018:

The Earth is generally regarded as having warmed about about 1° C (1.8° F) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, around 1750. In 2017, two professional papers generated much debate in both the popular press and professional literature about whether this figure is correct. Schurer, et al. argued the rise is 1.2° C (2.2° F) and Millar, et al. claimed the rise is 0.9° C (1.6° F).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...earth-warmed-and-does-it-matter/#484805a95c22
​

So, do we need to argue over whether "generally regarded" means "most scientists believed"? And is it not suspicious that just a year later the claim was double that amount?

I admit what I wrote could have been clearer for people who have no idea about AGW. Buy you act like you do, so how could you not know that "there's more water vapor which causes clouds that reflect more heat" meant reflecting the Sun's energy into space and thus cooling us because clouds increase the Earth's albedo? I was making the point that there are positive and negative feedbacks battling it out and scientists don't understand the most critical ones such as clouds, cosmic rays, etc. The only baseline is that doubling CO2, by itself, should raise temps by a hardly smokin' 1 degree C that'll take place across 300 years.

Nope, feedbacks can have positive or negative effects. As I said before, when ice melts and exposes the darker ground, it absorbs more heat than before, so that adds to the global temps. And when more clouds form, they reflect more energy into space, so that reduces the planet's temps. These are just a couple of the feedbacks that have to be considered when trying to estimate how temps will be affected by the CO2 doubling.

You really need to understand this science so you don't look clueless. As I quoted:

The radiative forcing due to doubling CO2 from the pre-industrial 280 ppm is approximately 3.7 Watt per square meter (W/m2). This energy inbalance would eventually result in roughly 1 °C of global warming in the absence of feedbacks. This is easy to calculate and undisputed.
​

Your cute graphic shows what I said in a different format (see the "You are Here" at 3.7 W/m2?) So what point are you trying to make? That CO2 concentrations will continue to rise? Obviously if we don't change how we manage this planet they will, but I believe I said we should do better by raising people's living standards up so they're not living a hard scrabble existence and thus will take better care of the Earth.

You do realize that doublings that do occur will have similar 1 degree C or less impact over a 100 years? That's a lot of time. Hell, in just the couple years Trump has been in office, his policies have led to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions:

More Ways Trump Is Winning and the Left is Seething — US Carbon Emissions Fell in 2019
https://www.redstate.com/bradslager/2020/02/10/781144/​

Meanwhile, the signers of the Paris Accords keep missing deadline after deadline:

'To date, we have failed': Worldwide nations struggling to meet goals outlined in Paris climate agreement two years ago
https://nationalpost.com/news/world...ined-in-paris-climate-agreement-two-years-ago​

So the answer would seem to be to make the entire world's population rich through capitalism and nationalism, at which point we'll all be managing the Earth's environment as if it were a giant park. Manufacturing will have moved off planet to orbit and the Moon. We'll probably have fusion power, so coal plants will be obsolete, and so on.

 

Mostly agree with that comment. You can't trust people who claim to be terrified by climate change when they fly private jets, live in homes that have enormous greenhouse gas footprints, and protest the building of nuclear power plants. But we all know they're just hypocrites:

Celebrities backing Extinction Rebellion say ‘yes, we are all hypocrites’ in open letter to media
https://rebellion.earth/2019/10/16/...e-are-all-hypocrites-in-open-letter-to-media/
​

Where I may disagree is if you think people should be forced to adopt an all-electric lifestyle. I think markets should make that decision through presenting desirable products and services, not governments mandating that people change their lives.

 

Your entire point is that science should work in a certain way. What you fail to accept is that it has been corrupted over the last 30 years by Leftists who are manipulating data solely for the reason of forcing people to change their lifestyles and to give government an even greater control over us. They've accomplished this by not allowing people who are skeptical about AGW to get jobs in climate "science" or even as weathermen, and by denying skeptics access to the public airwaves to debate the science.

That's how the Left works:

1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
David Burge
@iowahawkblog​

 

If you believe the data:

NASA: Earth’s deep oceans are not getting warmer (2014)
https://www.geek.com/news/nasa-earths-deep-oceans-are-not-getting-warmer-1606209/

Earth's oceans are warming 13% faster than thought, and accelerating (2017)
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating

Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Study Finds (2019)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change.html​

Are you seeing the scam at work, yet?

 

Why would you be interested in the change without feedbacks? It's meaningless.
​

I posted that graph to show how disingenuous yours was. You were trying to imply it would be hard to make a large effect with more CO2 because the curve was flat. It is far from being flat yet.

For your edification:
There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

We only win when everyone wins in this case.

 

Are you surprised the lower portion is cold?
Submariners have known this for years.

 

​

Here we go again. We should be interested in the change because it's the only baseline that's reliable. All the ensuing feedbacks are based on incomplete knowledge and thus we get unreliable climate models.

So it's not meaningless, it's the foundation from which our response to climate change should be based, instead of made-up numbers.

Wrong as you can be. Again.

I wasn't implying anything, unless you see sinister motives in my pointing out that CO2 warming is logarithmic, and so it has drastically less effect when it hits 560 ppm than when it was at 20 ppm. And will continue to have less effect as its concentration increases.

I think we're making progress. That quote just proves my point that the feedbacks are complicated and climate "scientists" don't understand them. But YOU'RE the one who submitted it, undercutting your own arguments that we should trust AGW science.

Did you just run out of steam? Not sure what you meant by this platitude in this context. Are you agreeing with me?