The New Climate Reality

True , but my point was not about you. The poster claimed you had to vote Democrat in order not to understand climate.
Presumably if you voted against Trump, then you voted Democrat. So you come under the posters umbrella of those who do not understand climate.
So maybe he has a point after all.

 

To the extent their politics are known, the climate scientists I admire seem to be Euro-style social democrats.

 

I'll pass your comment onto the relevant poster.
@Robert

 

Reinforced by the very exponential growth of the climate disasters we are experiencing today.

 

And that is what we need to do, TRY! Extinction is not something that sells well, but once it begins (and it has already started) the time to save our asses draws short.

 

Yeah, that's why Long Island-sized icebergs are breaking away from the continent.

 

There has been no increase in either severity or frequency of "climate disasters." To claim there has been any such increase is the essence of climate hype.

 

Believe what you want to believe.

I'd rather listen to the 98% of scientists, thank you. Unless you have a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the topic, you're just another flat-earther as far as I'm concerned.

 

Let's just take hurricanes to start. The peer-reviewed data record confirms there has been no increase in either strength or frequency.




Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

 

Not frequency. Strength.

 

And is supported by the empirical evidence of actual physical events.

That's nothing but a made-up number with no basis in fact.

You obviously don't know Jack....

 

Because you don't know anything about climate, you are unaware of the fact that a Long-Island-sized iceberg is not especially large in Antarctic terms, and that such calving is a normal and expected part of the Antarctic hydrological cycle whether the earth's temperature is rising, falling, or stable.

 

Periods of warm global climate used to be called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect. Do you know what a climate "optimum" would be?

 

No scientist OR poster here has EVER suggested that it makes sense to "average your inside to the outside" as far as I've ever heard.

 

Already a point against you. I asked for a link! Not your powerpoint presentation. You're just another anonymous random guy on the internet. I don't want to hear your theories or any other bullshit. You have zero credibility unless you establish it.

 

But three points against you.

Where are the links to support YOUR claims, hmmmmmmmm?

<crickets>

He cited the peer-reviewed reference. A 10-second Google search produced this:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL047711

You're just another anonymous random guy on the internet.

I don't want to hear your theories or any other bullshit. You have zero credibility unless you establish it.

Clear?

 

Do you have a PhD in climate science? Yes or No. Please link to your papers on the subject.

Says an anonymous random guy on the internet.

I'm not a scientist. I freely admit that, but this whole distrust of scientists is getting beyond ridiculous. If you can't appreciate my incredulity, then you are not capable of having this discussion.

 

The ONLY claim I have made is that I believe the majority of scientists. You have shown squat!

 

No. Do you? Please link to your papers on the subject.

You can choose to inform yourself as to whether what I said is true or not. What a concept!

Shocker! I'm not either, but I did study planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university. I'm guessing that puts me a little up on you.

I don't distrust scientists. I distrust political propagandists masquerading as scientists.

For me, the moment of clarity came a couple of decades ago when I saw how Lyin' Michael Mann had made the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age disappear from the historical climate record, and disingenuously commingled proxy data with instrumental data on his "hockey stick" graph. He proved that I could not trust him, and that his claim to be a scientist was a lie. And I know that any "climate scientist" who defends Mann's scientific malpractice -- and that seems to be a lot of the noisiest ones -- is also a liar, and not a scientist.

 

Then go write a book about it. After I read the critiques, I will decide if it's worth reading or not.

 

That is just baldly false. You claimed that Long-Island-sized icebergs were breaking off Antarctica. You claimed (absurdly, as it happens) exponential growth of climate disasters. You claimed that once extinction begins, the time to save our @$$es is short. Etc. Don't you read what you post?

That is also just baldly false. See above.

 

Were you under an erroneous impression that that response could be of some informational value to someone?

 

You think your opinion is more valid than others just because you say so?

 

No; because unlike yours, it is a reasoned and informed one.

 

At least you accept the global climate measurement and modeling that is require for ANY attempt to address climate change.

However, my understanding is that the chart above shows that the global temperature anomaly has been POSITIVE since the late 1970's through to today.

Further, I don't see any indication that the numerous natural cycles related to climatology have been considered in this analysis, as that is not what this analysis is about. However, those cycles must be considered when projecting Earth's average temperature. That is, knowing why the size of the anomaly changed is important.

I'd also point out that this is NOAA, and NOAA scientists are fully behind the conclusion that Earth is warming, with human activity being the major contributor to that change.

So, suggesting that this one single chart should override NOAA projections and understanding is RIDICULOUS.

It's a total charade.

One can NOT suggest this one NOAA chart proves ALL NOAA wrong while not even bothering to understand NOAA's full argument.