Climate Change? What Climate Change?

[Lord of Planar]

So you don't think the people that compiled the NASA site did their homework and cited only experts?

They cherry pick their material, just like the IPCC and others on the political band wagon.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Lmfao

You do know who the idiot kid who came up with the debunked 97% consensus is right?

View attachment 67391354




There is no consensus none

Which one of those blog links prove Curry wrong, and why do you think a blog is proof?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes there is . 97% consensus.

Read this.


"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are

Are what? You cut it off.

"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

I'm surprised 100% don't agree with have an impact.

"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

Yes, we have an impact.

So? Did any of those quantify it?

OK...

You guys are given a narrative. Then someone comes out with some statements that support the narrative.

They only support the narrative. Support is not fact!

 

[Jetboogieman]

When we are literally living through the consequences of man made climate change, the fact there are still denialists is pretty sickening.

Last summers recording breaking temperatures are here to stay and it is directly caused by man made climate change.

We are doing this, it is happening and all the lies you want to tell in the world, for what reason I can't fathom, won't change that fact.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Etc

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Partial list of leading scientific organizations endorsing human-induced climate change, along with a selection of related resources.

climate.nasa.gov

Man. I am sick and tired of repeating things I have stated over and over , year after years.

Have anything new? Less than a year old?

The material is written to support the narrative, but noes not explicitly state the narrative, with few exceptions. There are scientists who disagree, and science is not made by voting. Withe 100% consensus in science, then it is possible the minority is correct.

Please stop acting as if something is fact, when you aren't even citing the science in your own words. Learn the sciences to the levels needed, and I can explain why the narrative is likely wrong. I cannot have a productive discussion with someone who can only repeat what others say, as a great deal of scientific understanding is required.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Typical conservative......it's a conspiracy......they are all hiding the truth.....they are biased against us!

Isn't it embarrassing?

Typical liberal, building a straw man.

Calling a differing point of view a conspiracy without valid discussion?

I call that an automatic loss on your part.

 

[Lord of Planar]

When we are literally living through the consequences of man made climate change, the fact there are still denialists is pretty sickening.

Last summers recording breaking temperatures are here to stay and it is directly caused by man made climate change.

We are doing this, it is happening and all the lies you want to tell in the world, for what reason I can't fathom, won't change that fact.

I would appreciate people stop calling us names like "deniers," especially a moderator.

As for record temperatures, it's natural that we will see record breaking temperatures in populated areas getting larger, as the populations grow. As we cap off more of the land with asphalt, concrete, and buildings, we lose the natural evaporation cooling. The urban heat island effect is real, and dramatic. All meteorological stations are too close to populations to not be impacted by the urban heat is;and effect, and there is no proper way to adjust to get a global temperature. If you know a surefire way to adjust the effect out, then by all means. Tell us.

We do have an impact. But it is mostly land use changes and actual particle pollution. CO2 is a small part of heat increases.

 

[longview]

Typical conservative......it's a conspiracy......they are all hiding the truth.....they are biased against us!

Isn't it embarrassing?

No conspiracy, just simply people looking out for their own best interest, it is no more a conspiracy than unrelated people getting the same tax deduction.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I would appreciate people stop calling us names like "deniers," especially a moderator.

As for record temperatures, it's natural that we will see record breaking temperatures in populated areas getting larger, as the populations grow. As we cap off more of the land with asphalt, concrete, and buildings, we lose the natural evaporation cooling. The urban heat island effect is real, and dramatic. All meteorological stations are too close to populations to not be impacted by the urban heat is;and effect, and there is no proper way to adjust to get a global temperature. If you know a surefire way to adjust the effect out, then by all means. Tell us.

We do have an impact. But it is mostly land use changes and actual particle pollution. CO2 is a small part of heat increases.

You are science deniers through and through and you continue to lie.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Funny thing is, only fools disagree with Judith Curry.

She is right on board claiming we have a large impact. Just because she doesn't tow the AGW fear agenda, makes her an outcast, but she is brilliant and spot on.

You can find all the material you like trying to discredit her. That doesn't make it real.

Judith Curry IS a fool who pushes misinformation

Try to refute some of those myths she pushes.

 

[Nickyjo]

So wildfires didnt happen, glaciers never melted, and lakes never dried up until humans began using fossil fuels?

The issue is not whether, but how often and how severely. Somehow I assume you knew that, right?

 

[NolanVoyd]

No conspiracy, just simply people looking out for their own best interest, it is no more a conspiracy than unrelated people getting the same tax deduction.

So convenient.....everyone is selfishly lying creating a false narrative.......you say "no conspiracy".....but what you describe is a full blown nut job conspiracy theorey.

97% of climate scientists have alterior motives and aren't telling the truth?

Yeah right.

Think for christs sake.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The material is written to support the narrative.....

Big old conspiracy huh?

 

[Nickyjo]

How we fall on the issue, I repeat, is simple. If human caused climate change is real and harmful, we should try to regulate some things scientists tell us cause it, much like we did with smoking, smog, the ozone layer, etc. If it is not, such regulation is unnecessary and may harm economic growth. Conservatives consider regulation of economic activity as bad, liberals not so much. Why else would there be this split on science along political lines? Look at history, how relevant industries downplayed various dangers cause acting on them would harm the bottom line.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Judith Curry IS a fool who pushes misinformation

Try to refute some of those myths she pushes.

Please learn the sciences if you wish to make other peoples claims.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Please learn the sciences if you wish to make other peoples claims.

I cited proof.

Review.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How we fall on the issue, I repeat, is simple. If human caused climate change is real and harmful, we should try to regulate some things scientists tell us cause it, much like we did with smoking, smog, the ozone layer, etc. If it is not, such regulation is unnecessary and may harm economic growth. Conservatives consider regulation of economic activity as bad, liberals not so much. Why else would there be this split on science along political lines? Look at history, how relevant industries downplayed various dangers cause acting on them would harm the bottom line.

IF!

 

[Nickyjo]

IF!

I’ll go with both political parties plus the top scientists in the world to resolve the “if.” Somehow, it seems that if 1/2 a billion cars start up each day, if China burns lots of coal, that will have some effect. As Senator McCain said, if human caused climate change is real, we need to do some stuff. If it’s not real, much of what is suggested is good for other reasons.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I’ll go with both political parties plus the top scientists in the world to resolve the “if.” Somehow, it seems that if 1/2 a billion cars start up each day, if China burns lots of coal, that will have some effect. As Senator McCain said, if human caused climate change is real, we need to do some stuff. If it’s not real, much of what is suggested is good for other reasons.

Yes, but the levels on money spent on the problem need to be moderated by the true extent of the threat, and the real problems. Not chicken little's beliefs.

 

[Renae]

National Fire News | National Interagency Fire Center

www.nifc.gov

Utah's Great Salt Lake Expected to Hit Record Low Levels Again This Year (PHOTOS) | The Weather Channel

Great Salt Lake has dropped 11 feet since it was first measured in the 1800s. This year, it is expected to drop another 2 feet. - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com

weather.com

More human remains found at drought-stricken Lake Mead

The grim discovery comes a week after the body of a homicide victim was discovered in a barrel at the Nevada lake

news.yahoo.com

No exaggeration: Record lows at Lake Powell and Lake Mead call for drastic action

Lake Powell's elevation requires immediate protective actions. Everyone will be asked to conserve to delay or reduce further mandatory reductions.

news.yahoo.com

Louisiana farmers can apply for drought loans

Louisiana farmers can apply for drought loans

news.yahoo.com

Massive New Mexico wildfire continues to spread rapidly, force evacuations

Evacuations are underway in northern New Mexico and many other communities have been told to be ready to flee at a moment's notice as a massive wildfire continues to spread thanks to hot, dry and windy conditions across the Southwest. The Calf Canyon and Hermits Peak fires are currently torching...

news.yahoo.com

New Mexico wildfires captured in NASA satellite image

A satellite image released by NASA's Earth Observatory captured an aerial view of New Mexico's raging wildfires. The fires have been driven by windy and dry conditions, scorching grass, brush and tinder.

news.yahoo.com

Graphic: Dramatic glacier melt – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Now you see it, now you don't - Climate 365 graphic

climate.nasa.gov

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/05/08/texas-record-heat-midwest/?utm_campaign=wp_the7&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_the7&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F36cb263%2F6278f4a9956121755a6eb6da%2F618bca6eae7e8a6798b26778%2F14%2F40%2F6278f4a9956121755a6eb6da

Us...

Climate, changes... did you know there are Roman ports under the Mediterranean? Gosh... that climate, changing all the time.

 

[longview]

So convenient.....everyone is selfishly lying creating a false narrative.......you say "no conspiracy".....but what you describe is a full blown nut job conspiracy theorey.

97% of climate scientists have alterior motives and aren't telling the truth?

Yeah right.

Think for christs sake.

There is no conspiracy nor is anyone lying!
The data is highly subjective, and depending on what is modeled in the simulation affects the results.
Take the IPCC's AR6 report Summary for Policymakers,
(Which also opens the question of what is summarized, when the main report is not complete.)

A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 11 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface
temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.

The statement starts by saying that the observed global averaged warming since the pre 1900 average,
is between 0.8°C to 1.3°C, a spread of 0.5°C. They go on to speculate (guess), that added greenhouse
gasses may have caused warming of between 1.0°C to 2.0°C, but that aerosols may have caused cooling of
between 0.0°C to 0.8°C.
Let's discuss briefly why they might believe the actual GHG warming might have a high end of 2.0°C.
The NOAA AGGI is most of the greenhouse gasses presented as CO2-eq. The 1900, level is about 310 ppm,
and the 2020 level is 504 ppm. Simple forcing would place the warming at 5.35 X ln(504/310) X .3 = 0.78°C.(ACS formulas)
To get from 0.78°C to 2.0°C, requires a feedback factor of 2.56, which corresponds to a 2XCO2 ECS of 2.81°C.
No one is lying, because that is in fact the average of the simulations for modeling ECS (An abrupt doubling of the CO2 level).
The problem is that they are simulating a condition that cannot exists, the CO2 level cannot double abruptly!
The question becomes, why simulate something that cannot happen?
The answer is in the IPCC AR6 technical summary, in box TS.3 on page 72.

Since CMIP6 contains several ESMs that exceed the upper bound of the assessed very likely range in future surface warming,
these models can be used to develop low-likelihood, high warming storylines to explore risks and vulnerabilities,
even in the absence of a quantitative assessment of likelihood.

Some of the model runs have long high end tails, that can be used to tell a high warming story of the future.
A what if scenario. No one is lying, but they are not fully describing the uncertainty ether.

 

[longview]

How we fall on the issue, I repeat, is simple. If human caused climate change is real and harmful, we should try to regulate some things scientists tell us cause it, much like we did with smoking, smog, the ozone layer, etc. If it is not, such regulation is unnecessary and may harm economic growth. Conservatives consider regulation of economic activity as bad, liberals not so much. Why else would there be this split on science along political lines? Look at history, how relevant industries downplayed various dangers cause acting on them would harm the bottom line.

If it were only so simple, part of the observed warming since 1985 is from that smog regulation.
When aerosol levels, which had been increasing, started to fall, they allowed a greater percentage
of available sunlight to reach the ground.
The Sun was slowly decreasing intensity, but the energy striking the ground was increasing, and it was all from Human activity.
No one wants to go back to smoggy days, but clearing the smog crated some warming.
In the future, we may find out that CO2 is just a supporting actor, with aerosols playing the main role.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance
corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)

It should be pointed out that over the same time period, changes in CO2 levels contributed 0.217 W m-2 of forcing.

 

[PoS]

The issue is not whether, but how often and how severely. Somehow I assume you knew that, right?

Prove that weather is getting worse and prove that humans are the ones behind it.

 

[Napoleon]

Climate change is a fact.

The effects are undeniable.

So is the effect of unsustainable water usage in the desert. Which is what this is really about.

 

[NolanVoyd]

So is the effect of unsustainable water usage in the desert. Which is what this is really about.

No it's really about climate change.