World Likely has Hottest Summer on Record

[Slavister]

Oh theres most definitely a 'need' all right . I can read and I can count and I'd challenge any of your beloved '90% consensus' scientists with the same question that beat you because it would beat them too

Without an established empirical value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 then there is no verifiable science underpinning the whole AGW hypothesis

....... and then the money stops

You can't beat squat. Scientists estimate sensitivity in various ways and will take their estimated ranges over you unacceptance of any at any time.

You are just a guy with a chip on your shoulder reading denier blogs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No need for me to do that. I don't pretend to be a climate scientist. Neither should you.

Yet you pretend to know what the scientists think.

Are you a psychic?

 

[flogger]

You can't beat squat. Scientists estimate sensitivity in various ways and will take their estimated ranges over you unacceptance of any at any time.

You are just a guy with a chip on your shoulder reading denier blogs.

Estimate in 'various ways' you say ? How can they set such society wrecking targets like Net Zero based on such guesswork when (based on measurable data and direct observations) there is nothing wrong with the planet ?

I didnt use any denier blog . I simply asked you an absolutely fundamental question which beat you so you dodged.

 

[flogger]

Yet you pretend to know what the scientists think.

Are you a psychic?

Apparently he even knows what they guess

If we dont know how much CO2 causes how much (or how little) warming then the whole AGW hypothesis boils down to a Western middle class virtue signalling vanity project.

Of course its the poorest worldwide which will suffer most on this altar of indoctrinated green guilt ...... and for what ?

 

[longview]

Let's understand what the AGW premise is, that the earth (of some as yet undefined part of it) is heating up at an excessive rate. For that to be true we'd have to have temperature measurements then and now that would support the premise. If you want to believe that your pics prove it then all I can say is go ahead and enjoy.

What they prove, is that the evening and winter lows have caused most of the observed average warming.
Many people do not understand that the average warming for a day was for a long time the Max temp for
the day plus the min temp, divided by 2. Increasing ether side, can make the average increase.

 

[longview]

Of course it means that. It means vast majority of climate scientists believe human greenhouse emissions drive global warming.



2014 decade average? You are kidding, right? You are picking the whole decade average here and expect to come up with some meaningful answers when then talking about 2014-2023?

You are cherry picking and doing meaningless comparisons to make your meaningless case.

I did not pick 2014, that was the year the survey came out, so any opinions of warming could only be the warming
that the responding scientists knew about. Also a decade average is fairly normal, the IPCC used it in AR6.
IPCC AR6 SPM

A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C.

last I checked, 2010-2019 was a decade!
Also the data does not support high CO2 climate sensitivity!

 

[Slavister]

Yet you pretend to know what the scientists think.

Are you a psychic?

No, consensus papers are very clear.

 

[Slavister]

Estimate in 'various ways' you say ? How can they set such society wrecking targets like Net Zero based on such guesswork when (based on measurable data and direct observations) there is nothing wrong with the planet ?

Yeah, sure... Go ahead, continue to pretend that scientists from across the planet are idiots because clearly they go against "measurable data and direct observations" which show "there is nothing wrong with the planet".

 

[Slavister]

I did not pick 2014, that was the year the survey came out, so any opinions of warming could only be the warming
that the responding scientists knew about. Also a decade average is fairly normal, the IPCC used it in AR6.
IPCC AR6 SPM

By 2014 they did not have have decade average for that decade. That's as idiotic as taking century average.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

last I checked, 2010-2019 was a decade!

Last I checked, in 2014 they would have no knowledge of that decade average.

Also the data does not support high CO2 climate sensitivity!

That's your incorrect assertion. I'll trust scientists more than you on that.

 

[longview]

By 2014 they did not have have decade average for that decade. That's as idiotic as taking century average.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf


Last I checked, in 2014 they would have no knowledge of that decade average.



That's your incorrect assertion. I'll trust scientists more than you on that.

The had the decade average for 2004 to 2013.
As I said that is how the IPCC did their decade average.

How would you know what sensitivity the data supports?
The higher sensitivities are not based on empirical data but simulation outputs, of simulations that cannot exists.

 

[Slavister]

The had the decade average for 2004 to 2013.

But YOU did not use that.

All you do is cherry pick, use right wing think tank cherry picked data and stick with your talking points that amount to nothing but the idea that vast majority of climate scientists from across the world are missing something very simple that you can show in 2 sentences.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, consensus papers are very clear.

Consensus papers do not include all the scientists that understand the topic. Many remain to never give their opinion.

I think being a scientist that doesn't agree with the AGW agenda is similar to a Christian in Iraq. They remain silent or else they are persecuted.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, consensus papers are very clear.

Yes. They state that we have a significant effect. I am surprised the number isn't 100% as I agree we have an effect too.

 

[Slavister]

Consensus papers do not include all the scientists that understand the topic. Many remain to never give their opinion.

I think being a scientist that doesn't agree with the AGW agenda is similar to a Christian in Iraq. They remain silent or else they are persecuted.

Yes. They state that we have a significant effect. I am surprised the number isn't 100% as I agree we have an effect too.

Latest consensus, as we had discussed, was proven to be that human emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver. If you really read the paper, as you claimed you would, it says responses they received actually likely overrepresent those that oppose to the position.

Further, they found that when you compare an average AGW proponent vs average AGW denier, the denier BY FAR appears way more often in general laymen's media.

So no, this is quite different than being a Christian in Iraq.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Latest consensus, as we had discussed, was proven to be that human emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver. If you really read the paper, as you claimed you would, it says responses they received actually likely overrepresent those that oppose to the position.

No it hasn't. What quote in the body of the paper makes that claim?

Further, they found that when you compare an average AGW proponent vs average AGW denier, the denier BY FAR appears way more often in general laymen's media.

Yet the undeclared are still the majority.

So no, this is quite different than being a Christian in Iraq.

No it isn't. Any scientists who goes against the agenda, suffers.

 

[Slavister]

No it hasn't. What quote in the body of the paper makes that claim?

yes

Yet the undeclared are still the majority.

Undeclared? You mean those who did not bother responding? Most people don't respond to surveys in case you did not know.

No it isn't. Any scientists who goes against the agenda, suffers.

Well, do tell me all the sufferings of the people who responded negatively to this survey.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

A transition away from fossil fuels would also reduce toxic air pollution and other pollution from fossil fuels.

Revealed: almost everyone in Europe is breathing toxic air

Guardian investigation finds 98% of Europeans breathing highly damaging polluted air linked to 400,000 deaths a year

www.theguardian.com

Human Rights Lawyer Who Took on Chevron Put Under House Arrest: Steven Donziger Tells His Story

www.law.georgetown.edu

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[flogger]

A transition away from fossil fuels would also reduce toxic air pollution and other pollution from fossil fuels.

Revealed: almost everyone in Europe is breathing toxic air

Guardian investigation finds 98% of Europeans breathing highly damaging polluted air linked to 400,000 deaths a year

www.theguardian.com

Human Rights Lawyer Who Took on Chevron Put Under House Arrest: Steven Donziger Tells His Story

www.law.georgetown.edu

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

And how many more would be impoverished and die prematurely as a consequence of the removal of their affordable energy ?

No surprise that never gets factored in by virtue signalling western AGW ideologues

 

[flogger]

Yeah, sure... Go ahead, continue to pretend that scientists from across the planet are idiots because clearly they go against "measurable data and direct observations" which show "there is nothing wrong with the planet".

And maybe one day you'll explain for us all why indeed that is happening given that neither you nor they have ever empirically established what the climate sensitivity of CO2 actually is?

 

[longview]

But YOU did not use that.

All you do is cherry pick, use right wing think tank cherry picked data and stick with your talking points that amount to nothing but the idea that vast majority of climate scientists from across the world are missing something very simple that you can show in 2 sentences.

It is not something that anyone is missing!
If a young researcher wants to advance their career, they have to get funding, and the funding is all tied CO2 sounding like it has a high climate sensitivity. Thankfully no one has to lie, as one of the simulations almost always runs hot, ECS.
It’s not a valid simulation, but that doesn’t matter!

 

[watsup]

And maybe one day you'll explain for us all why indeed that is happening given that neither you nor they have ever empirically established what the climate sensitivity of CO2 actually is?

As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[expat_panama]

What they prove, is that the evening and winter lows have caused most of the observed average warming.
Many people do not understand that the average warming for a day was for a long time the Max temp for
the day plus the min temp, divided by 2. Increasing ether side, can make the average increase.

Interesting. Personally I never saw any temperatures at all, much less a temperature treand.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

And how many more would be impoverished and die prematurely as a consequence of the removal of their affordable energy ?

No surprise that never gets factored in by virtue signalling western AGW ideologues

Fossil fuels aren't always that affordable. That dictators like Putin use their massive fossil fuel profits to wage horrific wars against their neighbors and fossil fuel dictators like the Saudis are manipulating the supply. So you time after time get periods with spiking fossil fuel prices.

There are also the massive costs of climate change and toxic air pollution.
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion

So it is therefore good with all the examples that a transition away from fossil fuels is possible.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/electricity-generation-solar-wind-renewables-ember/

Norway BEV Sales: Over 80% Of New Cars Were All-Electric In May 2023

In May, 11,865 new passenger plug-in cars were registered in Norway (up 21% year-over-year), which is about 88.9% of the total volume.

insideevs.com

15-minute cities: What are they and how do they work? – DW – 03/15/2023

City planners say we have to rethink the way we build urban areas to make them more sustainable, healthy and just. The so-called 15-minute city is one idea. But are they viable?

www.dw.com

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It is not something that anyone is missing!
If a young researcher wants to advance their career, they have to get funding, and the funding is all tied CO2 sounding like it has a high climate sensitivity. Thankfully no one has to lie, as one of the simulations almost always runs hot, ECS.
It’s not a valid simulation, but that doesn’t matter!

You have provided no sources for those false claims.

Just like you have given no explanation for why Republican have done nothing against it. That Republicans could have easily have had the federal government fund alternative research if there had been any evidence against the need to reduce CO2. Instead was this report published during Trump's presidency because the evidence is so overwhelming.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

 

[longview]

You have provided no sources for those false claims.

Just like you have given no explanation for why Republican have done nothing against it. That Republicans could have easily have had the federal government fund alternative research if there had been any evidence against the need to reduce CO2. Instead was this report published during Trump's presidency because the evidence is so overwhelming.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

Please show evidence that ECS has predicted any temperature increase accurately?