Off the charts’: UN report highlights rapid climate breakdown

[ataraxia]

This is one of the things I keep saying. Scientists rarely commit scientific malpractice by taking a stance they don't have adequate evidence for.

I don't think you understand how science works.

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. "
-Nobel Laureate in physics Richard Feynman

Richard Feynman - Wikiquote

en.wikiquote.org

If you want that kind of certainty from science and will dismiss anything less, then you would have to dismiss ALL science.

I am still waiting for references. I am making an effort, in good faith. I would appreciate a reciprocation.

 

[ataraxia]

That article just explores others. Did you read the conclusion of the source article? The source paper is in
The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. Who cares about what it says.

Go ahead. Quote a part past the abstract that matters. It isn't paywalled.

Did you know it also contains this:

View attachment 67446479

Here is yet another abstract that we can both read:

"Here, we develop a statistical framework to test for spatial dependence and show widespread dependence of temperature and precipitation extremes in observations and model simulations, with more frequent than expected concurrence of extremes around the world. Historical anthropogenic forcing has strengthened the concurrence of temperature extremes over 56% of 946 global paired regions, particularly in the tropics, but has not yet significantly affected concurrent precipitation extremes during 1901–2020. The future high-emissions pathway of SSP585 will substantially amplify the concurrence strength, intensity, and spatial extent for both temperature and precipitation extremes, especially over tropical and boreal regions, while the mitigation pathway of SSP126 can ameliorate the increase in concurrent climate extremes for these high-risk regions. Our findings will inform adaptation strategies to alleviate the impact of future climate extremes."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo1638

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what does that have to do with the abstract of the paper?

So...

You are going to believe the "hook" of a paper, and not read any of the actual substance, but swear by it?

Wow. Don't you have any respect for yourself? Educate yourself on what you are actually promoting. You are making yourself look bad.

I suggests you stop taking the assessment of other people's opinions or lies as fact. Read the material they source and make your own opinion, before posting and linking it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here is yet another review article. It means it has lots of references!

"Anthropogenic global warming, interacting with social and other environmental determinants, constitutes a profound health risk. This paper reports a comprehensive literature review for 1989⁻2013 (inclusive), the first 25 years in which this topic appeared in scientific journals."

Climate Change, Health and Existential Risks to Civilization: A Comprehensive Review (1989⁻2013) - PubMed

<span><i>Background:</i> Anthropogenic global warming, interacting with social and other environmental determinants, constitutes a profound health risk. This paper reports a comprehensive literature review for 1989⁻2013 (inclusive), the first 25 years in which this topic appeared in scientific...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And again, you do not quote any substance from the body of text.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think you understand how science works.

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. "
-Nobel Laureate in physics Richard Feynman

Richard Feynman - Wikiquote

en.wikiquote.org

If you want that kind of certainty from science and will dismiss anything less, then you would have to dismiss ALL science.

I am still waiting for references. I am making an effort, in good faith. I would appreciate a reciprocation.

So why do you betray the man you are quoting?

Where is your healthy skepticism? It seems to be replaced with indoctrination.

 

[ataraxia]

That article just explores others. Did you read the conclusion of the source article? The source paper is in
The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. Who cares about what it says.

Go ahead. Quote a part past the abstract that matters. It isn't paywalled.

Did you know it also contains this:

View attachment 67446479

How about this one?

"Anthropogenic trends in temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation estimated from 31 climate models account for 46% (model interquartiles of 34 to 103%) of the 2000–2018 drought severity, pushing an otherwise moderate drought onto a trajectory comparable to the worst SWNA megadroughts since 800 CE."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz9600

Or this one?

"We investigate the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to the extreme temperature and precipitation events in Central Asia (CA) during the last 60 years. ....Given that these regions show a high risk of rainfall-triggered landslides and floods during historical times, we report that human-induced climate warming can contribute to extreme precipitation events over vulnerable areas of CA. Our high-resolution data set can be used in impact studies focusing on the attribution of extreme events in CA and is freely available to the scientific community."

Anthropogenic influence on extreme temperature and precipitation in Central Asia - Scientific Reports

We investigate the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to the extreme temperature and precipitation events in Central Asia (CA) during the last 60 years. We bias-adjust and downscale two Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) ensemble outputs, with natural (labelled as...

www.nature.com

Or this one?

" The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1058154

 

[ataraxia]

And again, you do not quote any substance from the body of text.

So you are saying the abstract is incorrect? Why don't you tell us?

 

[ataraxia]

So why do you betray the man you are quoting?

Where is your healthy skepticism? It seems to be replaced with indoctrination.

I am healthily skeptical of ALL science, like most scientists. It is always changing and growing.

That doens't mean I don't listen to my doctors with their latest recommendations though. And it doesn't mean I don't fly on airplanes or use a computer. Do you?

 

[ataraxia]

So why do you betray the man you are quoting?

How am I betraying him? I am just saying scientists always talk that way. That kind of certainty you are asking for is unknown in science.

 

[ataraxia]

So...

You are going to believe the "hook" of a paper, and not read any of the actual substance, but swear by it?

Wow. Don't you have any respect for yourself? Educate yourself on what you are actually promoting. You are making yourself look bad.

I suggests you stop taking the assessment of other people's opinions or lies as fact. Read the material they source and make your own opinion, before posting and linking it.

Scientists don't misrepresent what they are saying with a "hook" on their papers. Seriously.

So when are you going to give us any "hooks" of your own? Still waiting.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here is yet another abstract that we can both read:

"Here, we develop a statistical framework to test for spatial dependence and show widespread dependence of temperature and precipitation extremes in observations and model simulations, with more frequent than expected concurrence of extremes around the world. Historical anthropogenic forcing has strengthened the concurrence of temperature extremes over 56% of 946 global paired regions, particularly in the tropics, but has not yet significantly affected concurrent precipitation extremes during 1901–2020. The future high-emissions pathway of SSP585 will substantially amplify the concurrence strength, intensity, and spatial extent for both temperature and precipitation extremes, especially over tropical and boreal regions, while the mitigation pathway of SSP126 can ameliorate the increase in concurrent climate extremes for these high-risk regions. Our findings will inform adaptation strategies to alleviate the impact of future climate extremes."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo1638

Again. A abstract doesn't mean the body of evidence used in such papers reflects that. Consider this in that paper:



Look at the large differences between the observations and computer simulations. The precipitation observed appears it could be the peak of cyclical activity.

 

[ataraxia]

Again. A abstract doesn't mean the body of evidence used in such papers reflects that. Consider this in that paper:

View attachment 67446487

Look at the large differences between the observations and computer simulations. The precipitation observed appears it could be the peak of cyclical activity.

Not when taken in the context of all the other graphs there-or the entire rest of the scientific literature.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not when taken in the context of all the other graphs there-or the entire rest of the scientific literature.

Do you have a quote you wish you introduce?

Is it about their insufficient models?

 

[longview]

You had already granted that there is no question there is anthropogenic climate change- but just were wondering if it might be as significant as the scientists say. And you are supposedly even more read-up on this issue than Lord of Planar. So are you now saying Lord of Planar has actually educated you on the subject and you have changed your mind? If not, do you want to educate him on why he may be wrong on this issue based on sophisticated understanding of the subject?

Still not on topic! You quoted a passage that was not in the cited article!
Why not own it?

 

[ataraxia]

Do you have a quote you wish you introduce?

Is it about their insufficient models?

I would like 5 quotes saying that climate change is not man-made, from the last two years, from different authors. And I want certainty and conviction, like the kind you have!

 

[ataraxia]

Still not on topic! You quoted a passage that was not in the cited article!
Why not own it?

I made a good faith effort using artificial intelligence. I can’t be certain it was not in the article. No way to check behind a pay wall.

So I’m still waiting to hear you either explain why climate change is man-made to Lord Planar, or own that you were previously mistaken.

Which is it going to be?

 

[longview]

I made a good faith effort using artificial intelligence. I can’t be certain it was not in the article. No way to check behind a pay wall.

So I’m still waiting to hear you either explain why climate change is man-made to Lord Planar, or own that you were previously mistaken.

Which is it going to be?

Then you should not quote it!
I found a free copy of the article and cited it, you could have done that before you embarrassed yourself!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I would like 5 quotes saying that climate change is not man-made, from the last two years, from different authors. And I want certainty and conviction, like the kind you have!

I am tired of such lunacy.

I will for your post, assume by climate change, you mean what the observed temperature increases show us.

Now get this fact straight.... I have never, ever, not one single time in my life... Claimed we have no effect. I have never claimed a paper exists that says we have no effect.

You will not win against me, because you are full of lies!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I made a good faith effort using artificial intelligence. I can’t be certain it was not in the article. No way to check behind a pay wall.

Well, I have an open door and can get on the other side of that wall. This is because I actually read and understand the science. I am willing to pay for the actual science rather than look like a fool like all you indoctrinates look like.

So I’m still waiting to hear you either explain why climate change is man-made to Lord Planar, or own that you were previously mistaken.

Which is it going to be?

It isn't a yes or no question. We do play a part. Nature plays a part. The question should be how much of a role we play. I see no proper evidence that our part is as severe as claimed. And if you have no access to the journals, then isn't it foolish to act as if what you read on the internet is real?

 

[ataraxia]

Then you should not quote it!
I found a free copy of the article and cited it, you could have done that before you embarrassed yourself!

OK.

But I am still very puzzled as to why you are not so quick to correct Lord of Planar on his misunderstanding of anthropogenic climate change as you are to jump down my throat so much for not double checking a source.

Is it because Lord of Planar knows something you didn’t know in all your sophistication on the topic?

 

[ataraxia]

Well, I have an open door and can get on the other side of that wall. This is because I actually read and understand the science. I am willing to pay for the actual science rather than look like a fool like all you indoctrinates look like.

It isn't a yes or no question. We do play a part. Nature plays a part. The question should be how much of a role we play. I see no proper evidence that our part is as severe as claimed. And if you have no access to the journals, then isn't it foolish to act as if what you read on the internet is real?

So you are saying that when an article like this says stuff like this:

“However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950”

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

It is fake? Even when they cite papers to support their positions like this?

“The simple statistical model used for this analysis by Carbon Brief differs from much more complex climate models generally used by scientists to assess the human fingerprint on warming. Climate models do not simply “fit” forcings to observed temperatures. Climate models also include variations in temperature over space and time, and can account for different efficacies of radiative forcings in different regions of the Earth.

However, when analysing the impact of different forcings on global temperatures, complex climate models generally find results similar to simple statistical models”

 

[ataraxia]

Well, I have an open door and can get on the other side of that wall. This is because I actually read and understand the science. I am willing to pay for the actual science rather than look like a fool like all you indoctrinates look like.

It isn't a yes or no question. We do play a part. Nature plays a part. The question should be how much of a role we play. I see no proper evidence that our part is as severe as claimed. And if you have no access to the journals, then isn't it foolish to act as if what you read on the internet is real?

But it just seems odd that even on direct publications I do have access to, like this, your position still doesn’t seem right.

“Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modellers in a paper published online today. Most of the observed warming — at least 74 % — is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience1.”

At least three-quarters of climate change is man-made - Nature

Independent study quantifies human influence on global warming.

www.nature.com

If the scientific community really is this unsure of this, they sure have a funny way of saying it. Now I know you think they are all engaged in some grand conspiracy on this particular topic, but it just seems odd.

I really need to see where scientists are saying that we are not sure most of climate change is man made, and all these other sources are wrong (media, wiki, IPCC, government, scientific organizations, etc, etc…). Since you have access to all these, I would appreciate a few credible sources. Thanks in advance.

Otherwise I can’t help but assume such a claim does not exist, and these other sources are correct.

 

[watsup]

I have before, but you deny the science.

That is the lame excuse that you always offer and that we have come to fully expect.

 

[watsup]

But it just seems odd that even on direct publications I do have access to, like this, your position still doesn’t seem right.

“Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modellers in a paper published online today. Most of the observed warming — at least 74 % — is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience1.”

At least three-quarters of climate change is man-made - Nature

Independent study quantifies human influence on global warming.

www.nature.com

If the scientific community really is this unsure of this, they sure have a funny way of saying it. Now I know you think they are all engaged in some grand conspiracy on this particular topic, but it just seems odd.

I really need to see where scientists are saying that we are not sure most of climate change is man made, and all these other sources are wrong (media, wiki, IPCC, government, scientific organizations, etc, etc…). Since you have access to all these, I would appreciate a few credible sources. Thanks in advance.

Otherwise I can’t help but assume such a claim does not exist, and these other sources are correct.

He already reads Nature. He knows science. He has studied the issue for years. He already knows this stuff.

 

[watsup]

So...

You are going to believe the "hook" of a paper, and not read any of the actual substance, but swear by it?

Wow. Don't you have any respect for yourself? Educate yourself on what you are actually promoting. You are making yourself look bad.

I suggests you stop taking the assessment of other people's opinions or lies as fact. Read the material they source and make your own opinion, before posting and linking it.

More lame excuses and psychological projection. If you don’t have a rebuttal based on a peer review paper that you can show us, then just say so instead of wasting our time with one lame excuse after another.