Climate Science Is Not Settled

[Econ4every1]

Now, Now.. there are a few problems here.

We'll start with the Gun issue. Which is more deadly, Getting shot in the heart or stabbed in the heart? Oh wait that's a trick question. Both are deadly.

And so are cars, but car's are rarley used to commit homicides. The reason, because firearms are more efficient at projecting force.

Now the issue with the "realities" of "Climate Change" (it was Global Warming not that long ago but that didn't fit the narrative anymore) is that humans have **** all to do with it.

In the aggregate it is Global Warming, but since that can be confusing as some places can get colder, the moniker "Climate Change" was created to prevent confusion.

Evolutionary history of the Earth shows and tells us that. It's gonna happen with or without humans.

Here are some headlines of recent.. Get Ready for an Ice Age

British Met, Warming has stopped

This is equivalent of someone poisoning you and killing you slowly over a matter of years. When you die long before your average lifespan and the killer saying, "well, he was gonna die anyway".....

Yes, the environment has changed, but human activity has made a bigger change in the last 100 years than any 5000 year span in the last 20,000 years.

Far as David Rose, he's well known for being wrong and reporting misinformation.....

Here's a page that outlines in detail his pitiful record...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science

Lest I be accused of Ad Hominim and acknolage that even a blind squirrel can find a nut ,here is a decent source that debunks his claim...

David Rose Hides the Rise in Global Warming

 

[Grand Mal]

LOL....That's religion silly.

Yeah, very similar.

 

[austrianecon]

And so are cars, but car's are rarley used to commit homicides. The reason, because firearms are more efficient at projecting force.

One of these arguments, seriously? csbrown you are smarter then that, specially for a guy living in VA. Firearms are a force projections, so much so police and military uses them. If they were ineffective police and the military wouldn't be using them. So that type of argument is a non-starter with me and I am sure to even your neighbors who live out in the country where police response is pretty slow. Think about it, Police account for over 1,000 shooting a year that result in injury or death. That's 1/8th of all cases of gun violence. In LA they account for 10% of them. Were most justified.. absolutely. But they are acts of violence by a gun so maybe the data has to be collected properly.. as in justified homicide vs unjustified, homicide during a felony vs non-felony and you'll see a more clear picture.

It's also ironic that where Gun violence is high is also areas which vote democrat as well. Now it gets even more complicated then that but can't have that discussion without it turning into a race topic in which I won't give others the pleasure to be racist as there are a few of those posters around. But you and I can discuss further in PMs.

In the aggregate it is Global Warming, but since that can be confusing as some places can get colder, the moniker "Climate Change" was created to prevent confusion.

Umm, first off.. I don't agree the earth has been "Global Warming". Global means every place has warmed and it hasn't. So it's more like "Local Warming". But the moniker Climate Change has existed before they needed to hide by a new title after their last dog and pony show blew up in their face (Climate Gate, when "Scientist" were fixing the data for their models). It's an accepted term used for decades when discussing the earth's natural cycle of climate that changes.

It's why the term Climate Change is: Refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among others, that occur over several decades or longer.

Nowhere in the definition which I got from the EPA does it state Human caused change.

This is equivalent of someone poisoning you and killing you slowly over a matter of years. When you die long before your average lifespan and the killer saying, "well, he was gonna die anyway".....

Yes, the environment has changed, but human activity has made a bigger change in the last 100 years than any 5000 year span in the last 20,000 years.

No, it's reality. Here is a list of volcano eruptions that changed the earth and effect climate more the humans in the last 5000 years. So you know a VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index) of 8.3 is basically know as genetic bottleneck, the last one was Mount Toba happened between 69,000 to 77,000 years ago. So that's the mother load in effecting the human population which had only about 3,000-10,000 survivors. A VEI 6 causes noticeable climate change.

So here is the list in the last 300 years of VEI 6 or higher with some notes. Starting in 1783.
Grímsvötn
Laki: Killed 25% of Iceland's population, 50% of it's husbandry was destroyed, it admitted 3 times Sulfur dioxide output of Europe in 2006. Millions died from Europe to the Middle East because of Laki and it caused it to be so cold in the US, the Mississippi froze over in New Orleans.
Mount Tambora: Lead to the year without summer (big deal, you should read up on it).
Krakatoa: Global Temps fell 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next year. It took 5 years for temps to return to "normal".
Santa María: 5,000 died from the eruption alone, San Fran saw ash fall on the city which was 2,500 miles away.
Novarupta
Mount Pinatubo: World temps dropped by .5 degrees Celsius around the world.

Right now, in Iceland there is an on going eruption of a rift (Laki) in which now equated to a VEI 5 and it's gonna get worse. Bardarbunga when it blows (and it's highly likely) we'll be talking about how cold it is. So I don't get too worked up about X, Y and Z about "Climate Change" because all it takes is just one volcano to go boom.. problem is.. we are close to 20 (depends on how you look at it) going on right now..

Volcano Eruption in Papua New Guinea - YouTube

Far as David Rose, he's well known for being wrong and reporting misinformation.....

Here's a page that outlines in detail his pitiful record...

David Rose's climate science writing shows he has not learned from previous mistakes | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

Lest I be accused of Ad Hominim and acknolage that even a blind squirrel can find a nut ,here is a decent source that debunks his claim...

David Rose Hides the Rise in Global Warming

He's known for disagreeing and others (believers) saying he's wrong. So it's tit for tat. I am just providing sources. I am not gonna get bogged down in who's right or wrong. I have my own opinion and one of them isn't from Skeptical Science since it's math comes from models which have been proven wrong and have been admit to be wrong by the UK Met. Notice how you didn't use that link to refute?

 

[longview]

Given your question is quite similar, scientifically, to people who ask "How do you know vaccines arent causing autism?", I probably shouldnt bother answering. But....

Well, this is the link you should probably start with:


https://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/cycles6.htm

Feel free to browse the site extensively. I'm sure it will be eye opening for you.

For others, they may be interested in this:
Global Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

You can divert all you want, but Your statement,

Actually, mans influence on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a matter of fact, and not belief.

Implies that it is a matter of FACT what amount of atmospheric CO2 is directly attributable
to mans influence.
Post the amount and the citation, or admit your statement was incorrect.

 

[Econ4every1]

One of these arguments, seriously?

The only argument in my post was that it's silly comparing guns to knives....While I'm trained with both, and know the advantages of each, if I knew I would need one of them and had to choose between the two and I didn't now the circumstances under which I'd need them, the firearm is generally the better choice.

Umm, first off.. I don't agree the earth has been "Global Warming".

You know what they say, you are entitiled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I mean even the source YOU listed says there's no debate the average global temp is rising....

Global means every place has warmed and it hasn't.

So if I were to turn on the heat in my house and described it as "I'm heating the house", but one room was closed off and wasn't being heated, then I would be wrong?

I'll grant that global does engender the thought it's everywhere simultaneously, but I suppose that's why the name was changed. If this was some huge conspiracy, as has been alleged, why would anyone agree to change the name?

So it's more like "Local Warming".

It would be average global warming if you you wanted to split hairs, but the average is assumed.

But the moniker Climate Change has existed before they needed to hide by a new title after their last dog and pony show blew up in their face (Climate Gate, when "Scientist" were fixing the data for their models). It's an accepted term used for decades when discussing the earth's natural cycle of climate that changes.

It reminds me of the term "Big Bang". I term that does not accurately describe the theory of the reason of the universe, one created by a man who was ridiculing the idea, yet it has stuck, yet even a group as unreasonable as fundy Christians haven't decided to attack the word

It's why the term Climate Change is: Refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among others, that occur over several decades or longer.

Nowhere in the definition which I got from the EPA does it state Human caused change.

Which is why people often qualify, the term with "human cased"or anthropogenic, but usually people drop these terms depending on the context of the conversation.

No, it's reality. Here is a list of volcano eruptions that changed the earth and effect climate more the humans in the last 5000 years. So you know a VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index) of 8.3 is basically know as genetic bottleneck, the last one was Mount Toba happened between 69,000 to 77,000 years ago. So that's the mother load in effecting the human population which had only about 3,000-10,000 survivors. A VEI 6 causes noticeable climate change.[/quote]

Ok?

I don't think anyone argues that volcanoes can affect climate, but when they do, they make the earth colder not warmer, so they play no roll in warming, which was the basis of my statement that you responded too.

He's known for disagreeing and others (believers) saying he's wrong. So it's tit for tat. I am just providing sources. I am not gonna get bogged down in who's right or wrong. I have my own opinion and one of them isn't from Skeptical Science since it's math comes from models which have been proven wrong and have been admit to be wrong by the UK Met. Notice how you didn't use that link to refute?

Arguing other peoples numbers is exhausting. I'm ok agreeing to disagree on the number if you are.

-Cheers

 

[bubbabgone]

Such as whom?

 

[DDD]

Who said that it was?

 

[LowDown]

If AGW is not resolved by 2013, we're all going to die. That's just a fact, and NASA says so.

So 2013 was the year we were going to die or the year after which death became inevitable?

Death is inevitable, but I doubt I'll be going from climate change. I only regret that I probably won't live long enough to see these idjuts proved wrong vis-a-vis the climate.

 

[LowDown]

LOL....That's religion silly.

No, that's advocacy. As in politics.

That's not how religion works.

 

[LowDown]

Somehow, the realities of climate change, the role than human beings are playing in causing it, the consequences of continuing our current policies towards the environment, and the changes that we must make in order to prevent these consequences is settled to everyone in the whole world except the American right wing. Much like the benefits of universal healthcare, the connection between gun proliferation and gun violence, and of course the science of evolution and that the world isn't six thousand years old.

The whole world gets these things, except the American right wing.

Don't look now, but the whole climate consensus thing is officially chopped liver. See the OP.

 

[Econ4every1]

OK. Here's Professor Judith Curry.

An unsettled climate | Climate Etc.

". . . Climate science is no more ‘settled’ than anthropogenic global warming is a ‘hoax’. I am concerned that the climate change problem and its solution have been vastly oversimplified. Deep uncertainty beyond the basics is endemic to the climate change problem, which is arguably characterized as a ‘wicked mess.’ A ‘wicked’ problem is complex with dimensions that are difficult to define and changing with time. A ‘mess’ is characterized by the complexity of interrelated issues, with suboptimal solutions that create additional problems.


Nevertheless, the premise of dangerous anthropogenic climate change is the foundation for a far-reaching plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Elements of this plan may be argued as important for associated energy policy reasons, economics, and/or public health and safety. However, claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process. Science doesn’t dictate to society what choices to make, but science can assess which policies won’t work and can provide information about uncertainty that is critical for the decision making process. . . ."

"Science" is not performed by an individual and one should be skeptical of any one claim made by any single person, scientist or not. Science is an institution made of many, many individuals that cross social, religious, economic, racial, cultural and nationalistic boundaries.

When one listens to the "science", a few things become clear:

The earths climate, on average is getting warmer.

Man's influence has shifted the balance.

Just food for thought.....

What I find incredibly contradictory, is that the same people believe that AGW science is a global conspiracy of scientists who are simply interested in attracting research dollars, are by-in-large the same people that believe that "free markets" are incorruptible....

 

[Econ4every1]

Future generations will be laughing hysterically at the global warming kooks of this generation.

And no matter how bad it get's, those that are incapable of introspection will go on denying the effects until they reach "Flat Earth" and "Moon Landing" hoax proportions to keep from having to admit they were/ are wrong.

 

[Tim the plumber]

And no matter how bad it get's, those that are incapable of introspection will go on denying the effects until they reach "Flat Earth" and "Moon Landing" hoax proportions to keep from having to admit they were/ are wrong.

What effects do you expect to happen?

Please tell me what you expect not just post some wiki entry or such.

 

[Econ4every1]

What effects do you expect to happen?

Please tell me what you expect not just post some wiki entry or such.

I expect that increased trapped solar energy will lead to local changes in climate and the severity and frequency of weather events when looked at over a long enough time span will increase in frequency and severity.

 

[Jack Hays]

"Science" is not performed by an individual and one should be skeptical of any one claim made by any single person, scientist or not. Science is an institution made of many, many individuals that cross social, religious, economic, racial, cultural and nationalistic boundaries.

When one listens to the "science", a few things become clear:

The earths climate, on average is getting warmer.

Man's influence has shifted the balance.

Just food for thought.....

What I find incredibly contradictory, is that the same people believe that AGW science is a global conspiracy of scientists who are simply interested in attracting research dollars, are by-in-large the same people that believe that "free markets" are incorruptible....

The extent of human influence on climate (if any) remains unknown. I believe in neither a global climate conspiracy nor incorruptible markets. Try again.

 

[Econ4every1]

The extent of human influence on climate (if any) remains unknown.

Can you qualify that statement?

I'd agree that the full extent isn't known, but I think enough is known to make reasonably reliable predictions.

I'd say that you are mistaken. The type of carbon that is released naturally and the kind that is released as a result of burning fossil fuels is different. Carbon 12 and carbon 13 if memory serves. The ratios have changed with an increase of the kind released as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.

I believe in neither a global climate conspiracy nor incorruptible markets. Try again.

The last part wasn't necessarily directed at you, if you read it again, I hope this is obvious. Having said that, I'm glad to hear it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Can you qualify that statement?

I'd agree that the full extent isn't known, but I think enough is known to make reasonably reliable predictions.

I'd say that you are mistaken. The type of carbon that is released naturally and the kind that is released as a result of burning fossil fuels is different. Carbon 12 and carbon 13 if memory serves. The ratios have changed with an increase of the kind released as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.



The last part wasn't necessarily directed at you, if you read it again, I hope this is obvious. Having said that, I'm glad to hear it.

At the risk of committing pedantry I'd point out that there's no difference between "extent" and "full extent." More substantively, I don't think the case is made that carbon from fossil fuels has had any important effect.

 

[Threegoofs]

At the risk of committing pedantry I'd point out that there's no difference between "extent" and "full extent." More substantively, I don't think the case is made that carbon from fossil fuels has had any important effect.

Virtually all scientists beg to differ.

 

[iguanaman]

The biggest issue with global warming is not the science, but the reactions of government. They base power-grabbing policies on worst-case scenarios and thus remove credibility from the science. Policy for global warming should be based on long-term effects, as climate is a long-term system. Launching a policy of so much tax on carbon to reduce emissions by so much by a certain date aren't going to do a ****ing thing if the climate is already reacting to the carbon. Better policies would be based around mitigating the effects, rather than stopping something already in motion.

Sort of like beating your head against a wall. Why stop the pounding when you could be taking aspirin for your headache instead. We simply cannot burn all the fossil carbon on earth and expect to deal with it.

 

[Econ4every1]

Virtually all scientists beg to differ.

Let me clarify that a bit, 97% of all all scientists that are qualified to hold an opinion on climate science disagree....

 

[spud_meister]

Sort of like beating your head against a wall. Why stop the pounding when you could be taking aspirin for your headache instead. We simply cannot burn all the fossil carbon on earth and expect to deal with it.

It took all the CO2 emitted since the industrial revolution to cause the amount of global warming we've seen so far. Another 20 years of carbon emissions while we engage in long term solutions such as reforestation projects and building nuclear and renewable energy infrastructure isn't going to make global warming any worse.

 

[Jack Hays]

Virtually all scientists beg to differ.

I'm OK with that. Every time in my life when the central opposing argument was that almost everyone else disagreed, and I went ahead anyway, it worked out well.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The rest of us decline to share your handbasket.

 

[Threegoofs]

Let me clarify that a bit, 97% of all all scientists that are qualified to hold an opinion on climate science disagree....

Yes. And the more people are experts in the field, the stronger the agreement.

See Anderegg, et al , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010

And moreover, the greater the expertise in environmental biology, the greater the researcher thinks the expected impact of climate change will be on biodiversity. Javeline et al, Bioscience, 2013

 

[Jack Hays]

Let me clarify that a bit, 97% of all all scientists that are qualified to hold an opinion on climate science disagree....

The more we learn about climate (in)sensitivity the more likely that is to change.

Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty | Climate Etc.

". . . There is thus now solid peer-reviewed evidence showing that the underlying forcing and heat uptake estimates in AR5 support narrower ‘likely’ ranges for ECS and TCR with far lower upper limits than per the AR5 observationally-based ‘likely’ ranges of: 2.45°C vs 4.5°C for ECS and 1.8°C vs 2.5°C for TCR. The new energy budget estimates incorporate the extremely wide AR5 aerosol forcing uncertainty range – the dominant contribution to uncertainty in the ECS and TCR estimates – as well as thorough allowance for uncertainty in other forcing components, in heat uptake and surface temperature, and for internal variability. The ‘likely’ ranges they give for ECS and TCR can properly be compared with the AR5 Chapter 10 ‘likely’ ranges that reflect only observationally-based studies, shown in Table 1. The AR5 overall assessment ranges are the same. . . ."