2019 2nd Hottest Year On Record

[Bergslagstroll]

The wild fires that have a raged in Australia since September is still a threat.

Australia wildfires: Canberra declares state of emergency as massive blaze threatens capital

While climate change have a negative effects on both farming and fishery in Australia.

Climate change has cut Australian farm profits by 22% a year over past 20 years, report says | Australia news | The Guardian

Climate change: Fish declining in Tasmania, Southern Ocean after drought, over-fishing

 

[Jack Hays]

You have a president that deny the need for action on climate change. So if federal agencies would want keep the heat off they would have published reports that disproved the need for action, if there had been any credible contrary evidence.

Also The combined revenue of the world's four biggest fossil fuel companies are 1.5 trillion dollars. There you for just one percent of that, 15 billion dollars, could get a lot of scientific research, PR, marketing and lobbying. So it would have been easy for fossil fuel companies to disprove the urgent need for action if there have been any contrary evidence.

List of largest companies by revenue - Wikipedia

So the fact that both federal agencies under Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies acknowledge the urgent need for action show how overwhelming the evidence is.

Nope. The companies don't care.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Nope. The companies don't care.

Why do you care so much and spend so much time opposing action on climate change? Because if I understand you correctly, taking action on climate change have so little consequences that not even fossil fuel companies care.

 

[Jack Hays]

Why do you care so much and spend so much time opposing action on climate change? Because if I understand you correctly, taking action on climate change have so little consequences that not even fossil fuel companies care.

I don't want to see resources fecklessly wasted on a non-problem when there are so many real problems to address. This was well explained by Bjorn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist and other publications.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I don't want to see resources fecklessly wasted on a non-problem when there are so many real problems to address. This was well explained by Bjorn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist and other publications.

Bjorn Lomborg and other like him have so little credibility that even fossil fuel companies have to support the Paris Accord.

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil

There taking action on climate change today is a bipartisan issue. Take for example that both left wing and right wing government have agreed on that EU should be carbon neutral by 2050. There fossil fuel companies could have easily avoided goals like that by funding research to disprove the urgent need for action if there had been any credible contrary evidence. Instead the evidence is so overwhelming that they to have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

EU carbon neutrality: Leaders agree 2050 target without Poland - BBC News

 

[Jack Hays]

Bjorn Lomborg and other like him have so little credibility that even fossil fuel companies have to support the Paris Accord.

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil

There taking action on climate change today is a bipartisan issue. Take for example that both left wing and right wing government have agreed on that EU should be carbon neutral by 2050. There fossil fuel companies could have easily avoided goals like that by funding research to disprove the urgent need for action if there had been any credible contrary evidence. Instead the evidence is so overwhelming that they to have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

EU carbon neutrality: Leaders agree 2050 target without Poland - BBC News

As Einstein pointed out long ago, one is enough.

 

[calamity]

As Einstein pointed out long ago, one is enough.

1988 Climate Warning Was Mostly Right

On a 98-degree June day in Washington in 1988, physicist James Hansen told a U.S. Senate committee that “global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.” Hansen, at the time director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, elaborated that “with 99% confidence we can state that the warming during this time period is a real warming trend.”


Zeke Hausfather of UC Berkeley, the Breakthrough Institute and Berkeley Earth and his three co-authors did in a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters last month, 1 and “the results are consistent with the observations.” That is, the model used by Hansen and his co-authors in 1988 did a good job of predicting how much warming would be caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, it just failed to predict with perfect accuracy what those concentrations would be. Hausfather and his co-authors made similar corrections to 15 other detailed warming forecasts made from 1970 through 2007 and found that all but three had proved “skillful” in extrapolating temperature changes from greenhouse-gas concentrations. As Gavin Schmidt, Hansen’s successor at the Goddard Institute and one of Hausfather’s co-authors, put it in a blog post summarizing the results: “Gosh, maybe we know something about climate after all!”

:roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

1988 Climate Warning Was Mostly Right



:roll:

Actually, no. And the error is easily demonstrated.


Analysis of a carbon forecast gone wrong: the case of the IPCC FAR

Posted on January 31, 2020 by curryja | 47 comments
by Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR) made forecasts or projections of future concentrations of carbon dioxide that turned out to be too high.
Continue reading →

Explaining the Discrepancies Between Hausfather et al. (2019) and Lewis&Curry (2018)

Posted on January 17, 2020 by curryja | 237 comments
by Ross McKitrick
Challenging the claim that a large set of climate model runs published since 1970’s are consistent with observations for the right reasons.
Continue reading →

 

[calamity]

Actually, no. And the error is easily demonstrated.


Analysis of a carbon forecast gone wrong: the case of the IPCC FAR

[FONT=&]Posted on January 31, 2020 by curryja | 47 comments[/FONT]
by Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR) made forecasts or projections of future concentrations of carbon dioxide that turned out to be too high.
Continue reading →

Explaining the Discrepancies Between Hausfather et al. (2019) and Lewis&Curry (2018)

[FONT=&]Posted on January 17, 2020 by curryja | 237 comments[/FONT]
by Ross McKitrick
Challenging the claim that a large set of climate model runs published since 1970’s are consistent with observations for the right reasons.
Continue reading →

Uh, no. The evidence is overwhelming. Note the trend.

Up, up and away, like a beautiful red balloon.

 

[Jack Hays]

Uh, no. The evidence is overwhelming. Note the trend.

Up, up and away, like a beautiful red balloon.

Alas, no.


Climate Models Have Not Improved in 50 Years

Guest “how can he write this with straight face?” by David Middleton Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warmingBy Warren Cornwall Dec. 4, 2019 Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the…

December 6, 2019 in Climate Models.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Uh, no. The evidence is overwhelming. Note the trend.

Up, up and away, like a beautiful red balloon.

Another use of the worse temperature data set, with no link behind it.

The Global Cooling time is almost removed after their repeated adjustments, it used to be around .6C cooler, now it is less than .1C cooler.

You have no interest in the truth at all.

 

[calamity]

Alas, no.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
Climate Models Have Not Improved in 50 Years

[FONT=&]Guest “how can he write this with straight face?” by David Middleton Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warmingBy Warren Cornwall Dec. 4, 2019 Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the…
[/FONT]
December 6, 2019 in Climate Models.

Yes, we will ignore reality to rely instead on spam from WUWT :roll:

 

[calamity]

Another use of the worse temperature data set, with no link behind it.

The Global Cooling time is almost removed after their repeated adjustments, it used to be around .6C cooler, now it is less than .1C cooler.

You have no interest in the truth at all.

Spewing nonsense and gibberish will not make a strong case, regardless how badly you wish it would.

 

[calamity]

Nonsense, gibberish and spam: a novel approach to arguing. I guess.

 

[Buzz]

Another use of the worse temperature data set, with no link behind it.

The Global Cooling time is almost removed after their repeated adjustments, it used to be around .6C cooler, now it is less than .1C cooler.

You have no interest in the truth at all.

NASA's GISS global temps have not been adjusted down .5 degrees at any point. That is just another denialist lie!

 

[Threegoofs]

Another use of the worse temperature data set, with no link behind it.

The Global Cooling time is almost removed after their repeated adjustments, it used to be around .6C cooler, now it is less than .1C cooler.

You have no interest in the truth at all.

‘Worst’ meaning you don’t like what it says.

But realistically, all the surface temperature sets are pretty much in agreement.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, we will ignore reality to rely instead on spam from WUWT :roll:

You already missed the boat by ignoring #383.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

‘Worst’ meaning you don’t like what it says.

But realistically, all the surface temperature sets are pretty much in agreement.

You also have the fossil fuel companies that have a strong motivations to disprove manmade global while also having operations all across the world. So they could have easily disproved the temperature data if something was wrong with them. Instead the evidence is so overwhelming that even they have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil