Climate Impacts 'Overwhelming'

[Sunstone]

I don't see Hillary as the solution.

Neither do I. Hillary is a corporate Democrat.

 

[Avi1001]

Neither do I. Hillary is a corporate Democrat.

Not only that, she has been so beaten up the last 12 years, she seems to be running on vapors. Too bad.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I suppose you expected there to be no learning curve?

Well the problem is that while all IPCC global climate models predicted increased warming with increased CO2 into the 21st century, over the last decade and a half, natural climate has not cooperated...the global temperatures have remained at their highs of the late nineties.

Now we can all agree that global temperature have increased since the late seventies, but what I can't agree to is that the science has shown it to be primarily caused by human derived CO2 emissions. Now I can also agree that perhaps human derived CO2 emissions does add something to the temperature, but not so significant a factor as factored into the GCMs (Global Climate Models). That's why all the IPCC GCM show greater disparity between their predicted increase in global temperature against actual reality as time goes on.

Now the AGW scientists claim that the 15 + year pause is not long enough to prove their science wrong...it is just that some yet unknown natural climate change is offsetting the additional CO2. The most popular reason they say is that it went into the ocean..but there is no consensus among AGW scientists on this, nor can they actually measure it to prove their theory...nor does it address the fact that this 15 year plus pause in increasing warning shows the GCMs are inadequate to predict long term global temperatures.

If the IPCC allowed that the anthropogenic factor was to be open for critical research, there would be learning taking place...but there are little to no research funds for any scientist who questions the present AGW approach...they become known as deniers and attacked by the AGW community who are the allies of the UN IPCC.

AGW is like a religion, wrt masses who can't or don't bother to do their own research on all the facts, they have a faith based belief that the AGW scientists have it right as though they were infallible, and treat the skeptics as infidels, deniers, or worse. If there is any learning to be done, it is for the people to do some probing and find out for themselves.

If someone wants to raise the subject of AGW with me, I first ask them a simple question such as...how much has global temperatures increased since 1880? ..or how much has global temperatures increased over the last 15 plus years?.. and if they can't answer it I won't engage them as they are just dummies regurgitating the AGW propaganda that have heard from talking heads on TV or something.

 

[Knight of Albion]

Well said...here is a link to a site showing just some failed predictions with referenced supporting links...

Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laughingstocks

I guess that depends where you are. Where I am in SW England, throughout the winter just gone, we had only one frost and no snow. It was an unusually mild winter, with many storms and very high levels of rain and severe flooding.

 

[Knight of Albion]

I suppose you expected there to be no learning curve?

We are going into uncharted territory. How climate change will fully manifest itself, how bad it will be and to what measure it will impact upon our society remains to be seen, but the evidence for it is real enough. How many more 'wake up' calls do we need?

 

[YmirGF]

Well the problem is that while all IPCC global climate models predicted increased warming with increased CO2 into the 21st century, over the last decade and a half, natural climate has not cooperated...the global temperatures have remained at their highs of the late nineties.

Now we can all agree that global temperature have increased since the late seventies, but what I can't agree to is that the science has shown it to be primarily caused by human derived CO2 emissions. Now I can also agree that perhaps human derived CO2 emissions does add something to the temperature, but not so significant a factor as factored into the GCMs (Global Climate Models). That's why all the IPCC GCM show greater disparity between their predicted increase in global temperature against actual reality as time goes on.

Now the AGW scientists claim that the 15 + year pause is not long enough to prove their science wrong...it is just that some yet unknown natural climate change is offsetting the additional CO2. The most popular reason they say is that it went into the ocean..but there is no consensus among AGW scientists on this, nor can they actually measure it to prove their theory...nor does it address the fact that this 15 year plus pause in increasing warning shows the GCMs are inadequate to predict long term global temperatures.

If the IPCC allowed that the anthropogenic factor was to be open for critical research, there would be learning taking place...but there are little to no research funds for any scientist who questions the present AGW approach...they become known as deniers and attacked by the AGW community who are the allies of the UN IPCC.

AGW is like a religion, wrt masses who can't or don't bother to do their own research on all the facts, they have a faith based belief that the AGW scientists have it right as though they were infallible, and treat the skeptics as infidels, deniers, or worse. If there is any learning to be done, it is for the people to do some probing and find out for themselves.

If someone wants to raise the subject of AGW with me, I first ask them a simple question such as...how much has global temperatures increased since 1880? ..or how much has global temperatures increased over the last 15 plus years?.. and if they can't answer it I won't engage them as they are just dummies regurgitating the AGW propaganda that have heard from talking heads on TV or something.

I think the hysterical tones issuing from the latest IPPC report are indicative of how desperate this agenda driven meme is getting. It's too late to walk the dog back without looking like utter fools. A desperate gamble, to be sure, but not one that is likely to gain much traction.

 

[Sunstone]

Well the problem is that while all IPCC global climate models predicted increased warming with increased CO2 into the 21st century, over the last decade and a half, natural climate has not cooperated...the global temperatures have remained at their highs of the late nineties.

Now we can all agree that global temperature have increased since the late seventies, but what I can't agree to is that the science has shown it to be primarily caused by human derived CO2 emissions. Now I can also agree that perhaps human derived CO2 emissions does add something to the temperature, but not so significant a factor as factored into the GCMs (Global Climate Models). That's why all the IPCC GCM show greater disparity between their predicted increase in global temperature against actual reality as time goes on.

Now the AGW scientists claim that the 15 + year pause is not long enough to prove their science wrong...it is just that some yet unknown natural climate change is offsetting the additional CO2. The most popular reason they say is that it went into the ocean..but there is no consensus among AGW scientists on this, nor can they actually measure it to prove their theory...nor does it address the fact that this 15 year plus pause in increasing warning shows the GCMs are inadequate to predict long term global temperatures.

If the IPCC allowed that the anthropogenic factor was to be open for critical research, there would be learning taking place...but there are little to no research funds for any scientist who questions the present AGW approach...they become known as deniers and attacked by the AGW community who are the allies of the UN IPCC.

AGW is like a religion, wrt masses who can't or don't bother to do their own research on all the facts, they have a faith based belief that the AGW scientists have it right as though they were infallible, and treat the skeptics as infidels, deniers, or worse. If there is any learning to be done, it is for the people to do some probing and find out for themselves.

If someone wants to raise the subject of AGW with me, I first ask them a simple question such as...how much has global temperatures increased since 1880? ..or how much has global temperatures increased over the last 15 plus years?.. and if they can't answer it I won't engage them as they are just dummies regurgitating the AGW propaganda that have heard from talking heads on TV or something.

And your sources for your assertions are Exxon?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And your sources for your assertions are Exxon?

That you ask such a question causes me to hesitate and wonder if I should ask one of those questions I mentioned to determine whether you are worth the time. I will for now give you the benefit of the doubt and respond to you on the basis that you know the answers.

Now to answer your question...

For temperature records.....IPCC data, Hadcrut 4 global mean temperature data, Gistemp global mean temperature data, RSS Lower Trop global mean, UAH Lower Trop global mean.

For CO2 Levels....ESRL CO2 (Mauna Loa) interpolated mean.

If you know how to use WoodForTrees.Org Interactive service, you can verify for yourself...Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Now friend Sunstone, if you don't know who the sources are and their importance in the climate science that I provide to answer your question, I suggest you do some research.

The real world is one, as is its climate, left and right politics play no part in how climate unfolds....so forget about politics if you want to understand the state of climate...don't be persuaded by even the most articualte of scientists if they have a personal political bias towards the left....or the right!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think the hysterical tones issuing from the latest IPPC report are indicative of how desperate this agenda driven meme is getting. It's too late to walk the dog back without looking like utter fools. A desperate gamble, to be sure, but not one that is likely to gain much traction.

Yes YmirGF, when one realizes that all the kids in this world up to 16/7 years of age have lived in a world whose average temperature trend has been unchanged since when they were born...how do you frighten them about the AGW?

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Being a man of common understanding can only guess science of any kind including climatic change works on a model which are based on few parameters and life has so many parameters which guess even the intelligent human brains are yet to understand about and so predictions will be faulty like we humans who are not perfect.

Personally take this as part of evolution and that life moves in a cyclic fashion the earth has had previous melting and formation of ice/glaciers.
If temperatures have risen to levels unknown to earth previously would also means that the severity of the coldness during the next ice age will also be in extremes.

This is also true that since life is an evolving phenomenon humans will still survive such conditions being made conditional over the years/ages even genetically.

Read this: Harvard Gazette: Meditation changes temperatures

Love & rgds

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My experience doesn't really match up with yours, as far as I can tell.

No doubt that's the case. However, if educating people and making them aware of the facts of global climate change is a goal, then I suspect it might be beneficial to do some studies which attempt to quantify the population's perceptions in this regard. Any effective PR campaign always relies far more on understanding and shaping peoples' perceptions than it does on simply expecting them to all reach the same conclusion by somehow all filtering and absorbing the same information.

 

[Sunstone]

Well the problem is that while all IPCC global climate models predicted increased warming with increased CO2 into the 21st century, over the last decade and a half, natural climate has not cooperated...the global temperatures have remained at their highs of the late nineties.

Now we can all agree that global temperature have increased since the late seventies, but what I can't agree to is that the science has shown it to be primarily caused by human derived CO2 emissions. Now I can also agree that perhaps human derived CO2 emissions does add something to the temperature, but not so significant a factor as factored into the GCMs (Global Climate Models). That's why all the IPCC GCM show greater disparity between their predicted increase in global temperature against actual reality as time goes on.

Now the AGW scientists claim that the 15 + year pause is not long enough to prove their science wrong...it is just that some yet unknown natural climate change is offsetting the additional CO2. The most popular reason they say is that it went into the ocean..but there is no consensus among AGW scientists on this, nor can they actually measure it to prove their theory...nor does it address the fact that this 15 year plus pause in increasing warning shows the GCMs are inadequate to predict long term global temperatures.

If the IPCC allowed that the anthropogenic factor was to be open for critical research, there would be learning taking place...but there are little to no research funds for any scientist who questions the present AGW approach...they become known as deniers and attacked by the AGW community who are the allies of the UN IPCC.

AGW is like a religion, wrt masses who can't or don't bother to do their own research on all the facts, they have a faith based belief that the AGW scientists have it right as though they were infallible, and treat the skeptics as infidels, deniers, or worse. If there is any learning to be done, it is for the people to do some probing and find out for themselves.

If someone wants to raise the subject of AGW with me, I first ask them a simple question such as...how much has global temperatures increased since 1880? ..or how much has global temperatures increased over the last 15 plus years?.. and if they can't answer it I won't engage them as they are just dummies regurgitating the AGW propaganda that have heard from talking heads on TV or something.

Ben, over 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers on climate change accept that humans are causing global warming. As opposed to the findings of thousands of qualified scientists, we have your and Ymir's layman's opinions that the issue is in dispute. I just wish it were feasible to take your money in a generous bet as to who is right -- you guys or the scientists. What a shame that's not feasible because, as it stands, your talk comes cheap and at no price to yourselves.

Global warming is a long-term trend in which short-term ups and downs are to be expected. However, anyone interested in examining your point that the trend has been relatively flat in recent years would do well to read this article before jumping to the wild-eye speculation that global warming is either fictitious or not caused by human activity.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well the problem is that while all IPCC global climate models predicted increased warming with increased CO2 into the 21st century, over the last decade and a half, natural climate has not cooperated...the global temperatures have remained at their highs of the late nineties.

Now we can all agree that global temperature have increased since the late seventies, but what I can't agree to is that the science has shown it to be primarily caused by human derived CO2 emissions. Now I can also agree that perhaps human derived CO2 emissions does add something to the temperature, but not so significant a factor as factored into the GCMs (Global Climate Models). That's why all the IPCC GCM show greater disparity between their predicted increase in global temperature against actual reality as time goes on.

Now the AGW scientists claim that the 15 + year pause is not long enough to prove their science wrong...it is just that some yet unknown natural climate change is offsetting the additional CO2. The most popular reason they say is that it went into the ocean..but there is no consensus among AGW scientists on this, nor can they actually measure it to prove their theory...nor does it address the fact that this 15 year plus pause in increasing warning shows the GCMs are inadequate to predict long term global temperatures.

If the IPCC allowed that the anthropogenic factor was to be open for critical research, there would be learning taking place...but there are little to no research funds for any scientist who questions the present AGW approach...they become known as deniers and attacked by the AGW community who are the allies of the UN IPCC.

AGW is like a religion, wrt masses who can't or don't bother to do their own research on all the facts, they have a faith based belief that the AGW scientists have it right as though they were infallible, and treat the skeptics as infidels, deniers, or worse. If there is any learning to be done, it is for the people to do some probing and find out for themselves.

If someone wants to raise the subject of AGW with me, I first ask them a simple question such as...how much has global temperatures increased since 1880? ..or how much has global temperatures increased over the last 15 plus years?.. and if they can't answer it I won't engage them as they are just dummies regurgitating the AGW propaganda that have heard from talking heads on TV or something.

This seems all too similar to the arguments commonly repeated by people who don't accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact. Such arguments are apparently a convenient way to avoid having to reconsider one's views and act according to what the facts actually indicate rather than what one wishes were the case.

When it comes to environmental pollution, I think too many people assume that they can do whatever they want and not worry about the effects of their lifestyles on the environment because of the "it's just one more person" mentality. I can see how that belief may be tempting for some people, though; after all, it entirely places responsibility for whatever harmful effects that damage the environment on others and overlooks the effects of one's own actions in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben, over 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers on climate change accept that humans are causing global warming. As opposed to the findings of thousands of qualified scientists, we have your and Ymir's layman's opinions that the issue is in dispute. I just wish it were feasible to take your money in a generous bet as to who is right -- you guys or the scientists. What a shame that's not feasible because, as it stands, your talk comes cheap and at no price to yourselves.

Global warming is a long-term trend in which short-term ups and downs are to be expected. However, anyone interested in examining your point that the trend has been relatively flat in recent years would do well to read this article before jumping to the wild-eye speculation that global warming is either fictitious or not caused by human activity.

Your argument that we should accept the AGW B/S because AGW "qualified scientists" say so is not argument at all as it is an example of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority,(Argumentum ab auctoritate). I've made my case above based on on climate scientific facts...if you think otherwise....show me where the data is in error!

Also your reading comprehension is abysmal as I never said there was no global warming...in fact I positively said there was...fyi it is about 0.7 C since temperature measurements began...it is the anthropogenic component that I dispute...and I also said that there could be a human factor to some of that 0.7 C, so please reread my previous post on these points.

Look Sunstone, not even the East Anglia CRU or the UN IPCC is disputing the 15 year plus pause in warming...if you want to get my attention, show me where the IPCC is disputing it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This seems all too similar to the arguments commonly repeated by people who don't accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact. Such arguments are apparently a convenient way to avoid having to reconsider one's views and act according to what the facts actually indicate rather than what one wishes were the case.

You obviously do not follow the debate between skeptical and AGW scientists..they all agree on the 0.7 C global warming to date...the scientific global temperature measured data is all out there for everyone to see..what is in the dispute is the UN IPCC GCM (global climate model) computer predictions of the actual amount of global climate warming over the 21st century.

So show me why I should consider your argument logical?

 

[Sunstone]

Your argument that we should accept the AGW B/S because AGW "qualified scientists" say so is not argument at all as it is an example of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority,(Argumentum ab auctoritate).

*sigh* Like most people who have only a remedial grasp of logic, you have failed to take note that an appeal to authority is actually a valid argument in informal logic when the authorities appealed to have expertise in the relevant field or subject. Are you trying to say that climate scientists have no authority or expertise in climate science? That would be indeed remarkable, but I wouldn't quite put it past you.

I've made my case above based on on climate scientific facts...if you think otherwise....show me where the data is in error!

You have also failed to note that I am not disputing your data. Merely your naive interpretation of it. You assert, for instance, that since carbon emissions have increased over a short-term period of about 15 years, but the average global temperature has not, that global warming cannot be predominantly due to human activity. Your claim seems to be based on an assumption that we should always see temperatures rise relatively soon after carbon emissions rise. But on what grounds do you make that assumption? Did you pull it out of your hat? Perhaps you have done original research in your kitchen sink or bathtub into how soon increases in temperatures should follow increases in carbon emissions? Pray do tell us where you get your authority to make such a claim!

Also your reading comprehension is abysmal as I never said there was no global warming...in fact I positively said there was...fyi it is about 0.7 C since temperature measurements began...it is the anthropogenic component that I dispute...and I also said that there could be a human factor to some of that 0.7 C, so please reread my previous post on these points.

My reading comprehension? Look at your own! I never actually stated that you yourself believe there is no global warming. You are merely incautiously jumping to the conclusion that I did perhaps because my sentence was ambiguous.

Look Sunstone, not even the East Anglia CRU or the UN IPCC is disputing the 15 year plus pause in warming...if you want to get my attention, show me where the IPCC is disputing it?

Again, I am not disputing your data, but rather your naive and perhaps sloppy interpretations of it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

*sigh* Like most people who have only a remedial grasp of logic, you have failed to take note that an appeal to authority is actually a valid argument in informal logic when the authorities appealed to have expertise in the relevant field or subject. Are you trying to say that climate scientists have no authority or expertise in climate science? That would be indeed remarkable, but I wouldn't quite put it past you.

You have also failed to note that I am not disputing your data. Merely your naive interpretation of it. You assert, for instance, that since carbon emissions have increased over a short-term period of about 15 years, but the average global temperature has not, that global warming cannot be predominantly due to human activity. Your claim seems to be based on an assumption that we should always see temperatures rise relatively soon after carbon emissions rise. But on what grounds do you make that assumption? Did you pull it out of your hat? Perhaps you have done original research in your kitchen sink or bathtub into how soon increases in temperatures should follow increases in carbon emissions? Pray do tell us where you get your authority to make such a claim!

My reading comprehension? Look at your own! I never actually stated that you yourself believe there is no global warming. You are merely incautiously jumping to the conclusion that I did perhaps because my sentence was ambiguous.

Again, I am not disputing your data, but rather your naive and perhaps sloppy interpretations of it.

No, I am saying that AGW climate scientists have a bad track record in predicting the future climate of the planet...their authority relies on the efficacy of their predictions and in this so far the GCMs are failing to correlate predicted temperature increase with CO2 increase. Otoh, skeptical scientists predicted that the human CO2 contribution would not cause the warming predicted and so far they have a better record. Btw, are you saying that skeptical climate scientists who dispute the effectiveness of GCMs used by the UN IPCC to predict the future climate have no authority or expertise in climate science?

There is plenty of evidence of conversations between AGW scientists admitting dismay at the length of the pause in warming, and while everyone knows that there would be pauses and maybe even dips in climate change, 15 to 17 years of pause during a period of ever increasing CO2 is setting off alarm bells. But there is much more to this debate...like where is the missing heat caused by the ever increasing human derived CO2 over these 15 plus years? The formula in the GCMs provides for the extra heat, and the global temperature hasn't increased...so what has happened to it,

The two main explanations by the AGW scientists is that it was offset by natural cooling, ie. lower Solar contribution, Volcanic activity, etc., or that in went into the oceans. But they can't find it in the ocean so they say it is hiding in the deeps out of range of measurement, and the Volcano and Solar changes can't yet be quantified/predicted accurately by present science..another weak link in the GCMs btw.

The IPCC admit these grey areas but don;t advertise the fact as the UN IPCC from its inception is tasked with the of saving the planet from a given..the world was going to get warmer...and therefore can't admit they may be wrong. Global warming science is big business and the United Nations and supporters of the IPCC would be totally humiliated if they admitted they don;t have a grasp on it...ain't going to happen if the stake holders can prevent it.

So dear friend Sunstone..sfaiac..the jury is still out and if I were a gambling man which I'm not...my money would be on the mainline skeptical scientists' projection of about 1 to 1.5 C warming over the next century compared to about 2 C lowest case scenario by the IPCC.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

The climate here too is affected. Its getting WARM!

Love & rgds

 

[Sunstone]

The two main explanations by the AGW scientists is that it was offset by natural cooling, ie. lower Solar contribution, Volcanic activity, etc., or that in went into the oceans. But they can't find it in the ocean so they say it is hiding in the deeps out of range of measurement, and the Volcano and Solar changes can't yet be quantified/predicted accurately by present science..another weak link in the GCMs btw.

I don't know where you're getting your information that "they can't find it in the ocean", or that "it's out of the range of measurement." This article would suggest otherwise. As would this article.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't know where you're getting your information that "they can't find it in the ocean", or that "it's out of the range of measurement." This article would suggest otherwise. As would this article.

From the IPCC, Scientific Journals, Blog referenced climate study papers, etc. For your information, the two links you provided were from Skeptical Science and it has a reputation as a wacky alarmist CAGW blog, it has a bad track record in treating the subject objectively. The truth is that so far, the ocean heat content studies are limited due to the limited data collection at the deeper levels,,,the numbers that pro AGW activists throw around are just computer generated models,,,and not real...like most of the AGW climate science....just computer models all the way down. As I said in my last post....the missing heat in the oceans to account for the pause has been claimed, modelled, but not found yet. Yes the oceans do heat and that is being measured to some degree down to 700 meters but beyond that, the data is very limited.

Now here is an article from Nature (a generally pro-AGW reputable source for Climate Science) that covers most of the areas we have covered, ...and it pretty much states the case as I understand it. I trust you will not have any beef with it.

Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment