“Consensual science” – you just made that up. Or you don’t understand the term “scientific consensus”. Either way, you’re just wrong.
“time factor” – I assume here you mean that everyone can’t be an expert on everything, so we rely on experts in fields we aren’t experts in and use review boards and open data to validate results.
“catastrophic change” – I’m sure you can find some people who said something that was wrong, but how catastrophic would you like the change to be? More hurricanes? More flooding?
“no way to fix the problem” – That remains to be seen, but I don’t see much evidence that we can fix it.
“all the scenarios” – really? All of them? Fires aren’t increasing? Drought isn’t happening? Islands aren’t disappearing? Coastlines aren’t eroding?
“real science” – as you say later, you don’t know what that is.
“no science that can even prove Climate Change even exists” – Yet you described the CO2 effect earlier.
“the baseline” – another thing you made up or don’t understand.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensual scientific knowledge on climate change and its effects is to some extent the known truth, but not necessarily the entire truth. Consensual scientific knowledge is only a minimum common denominator for thousands of scientists of different disciplines and thousands of studies that due to their multiplicity, heterogeneity, and complexity, may sometimes mismatch. If we, scientists and science managers just precut credibility and consensus, we may end up misguiding society. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[321:CCPICI]2.0.CO;2?journalCode=ambi
Please explain where I am wrong. And let’s be clear on what I am saying. A theory is built from a hypothesis that has been proven correct. And the hypothesis is that CO2 is the sole cause of climate change. We had Al Gore use the Ice Core data to show that when the CO2 increases the earth warms up. The warm ups followed 100,000-year cycles. Then Gore use the hockey stick to show that the Industrial Age of CO2 levels were putting the earth in an un-natural situation of extremely high levels of man-made climate, thus creating Climate Change.
A question that was ask about Gore’s hypothesis was. Why did the CO2 follow the heating of the earth by hundreds of years? Shouldn’t the CO2 levels increase first, then the earth starts warming? The Ice Core graphs clearly showed that the earth warming in its natural cycle and the CO2 levels increasing with the heat. For a couple of years, the CO2 scientists looked for the missing heat and said they found it in the oceans.
Predictions came out using the hypothesis and what the extra CO2 levels would do to the earth. It is a fact that the CO2 does create heat. Example, if the heater in your house was on all the time and you were fine and the heat was just right for you. Then your heater needed replaced. And you replaced it with a heater twice the size. Representing twice as much CO2 in the air. Then you would be burning up with the hotter temperatures. You would put a regulator on your heater so that you could control the heat. Gore’s hypothesis does not have a regulator. And the climate change computer models don’t use a regulator. The reason is that if a regulator is used, then the hypothesis is wrong. And the CO2 has to follow the earth’s heating cycles. Yes, the more CO2, the warmer the earth to a point where the regulator starts cooling. It might end up being the hotter the earth, the more greenhouse effect and the more greenhouse effect the more clouds. The more clouds, the cooler the earth.
Talk about something that is hard to measure. And that would be clouds.
When you got eight-hours to do a forty-hour job. You have to deal with a the time factor and get the job done. I think we agree on this meaning. Catastrophic change
No, we were told whole countries would disappear under water and many species would go extinct.
No way to fix the problem.
All kinds of ideas. From building big machines that would pull CO2 out of the air to planting trees and plants. But I could not agree with you more. There really is no way to fix the a problem like the CO2.
All the scenarios.
It snowed today, OMG, it has to be climate change. Seems to be the movement. Remember that climate change is at the most 3% of the weather. The weather you are talking about matches up with the GCM’s (grand solar minimums) much better than climate change.
Real science uses theories and not just hypothesis.
“no science that can even prove Climate Change even exists”
Cherry picking. Try adding some more of the sentence.
…. no science that can even prove Climate Change even exists past the point where the earth can take care of the problem.
Please explain to me how you are going to separate the natural from man-made heat data without a baselines or datum point.
When you say I made up the baseline. Can you give me a short review of where you are on the climate change issues?
The baseline (or reference) is any datum against which change is measured. It might be a “current baseline”, in which case it represents observable, present-day conditions. It might also be a “future baseline”, which is a projected future set of conditions excluding the driving factor of interest. Alternative interpretations of the reference conditions can give rise to multiple baselines. http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html
I ask you where you are on climate change. Ok, let me try again. Lausten where are you and NASA at on climate change?
You do understand that climate change is the man-made heat. Not the global warming natural cycle. And what you posted from NASA was consensual science. The chart that of the posting was the earth warming. Somewhere in the earth’s warming is the climate change warming. Can you get me a chart just showing the climate change warming? Oh, wait, you can’t because there are no charts until the baseline is established.
Therefore, you are using science that states “Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” Science based upon “extremely likely”. Would you call that a theory or a hypothesis?
Now if you are the attorney for the California cities that are suing the oil companies for climate change. What percentage of that chart is your client responsible for? You want the United States money establishment to rewrite and revalue the risk of the bond market based upon “extremely likely”. Remember no construction can take place without a building bond. Many cities cannot build without bond funding. The system we use will have to be adjusted and updated at a cost of billions of dollars once the climate change is established “scientifically”. So, why is California cities suing the oil companies if they don’t have the facts? Because it is political. And they are viewed as a political joke. Many California cities are upside down financially and close to bankruptcy. The State of California is controlled by the Trial Lawyers Association. And they are floating in cash. But the fact remains that Climate Change has not been proven yet. Just follow the California cities lawsuits if you need further proof.
Right now, the President is asking NASA to reprioritize to work on the moon and Mars. And get out of the political science.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine is being considered for NASA’s next administrator. This is Jim’s views. Am I to consider them your views too if he is confirmed?
During a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Space, and Transportation Committee, U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine, a Republican from Oklahoma, said human-caused climate change “depends on a whole lot of factors.”
Bridenstine, 42, said he agreed with the statement that “climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
“I believe carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas,” he told the committee. “I believe humans have contributed to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
But when asked by U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) to what extent humans have contributed, Bridenstine said it is a “question I do not have an answer to.”
“But I do know that scientists absolutely contribute to global warming,” he added.
Schatz tried to nail down whether Bridenstine believed that humans were the driving force behind climate change.
“Sir, I would say human activity is absolutely a contributor to the climate change we are currently seeing,” he said. “I think right now we are just scratching the surface as to the climate system of the Earth.”
Schatz asked: “Is it the primary cause.”
“Well, it’s going to depend on a whole lot of factors and we’re still learning more about that every day,” Bridenstine said. “In some years you could say absolutely. In other years, during sun cycles and other things, there are other contributing factors that would have maybe more of an impact.”
I don’t know where you are trying to lead me? The IPCC Working Group II was set up to check out the socio-economic to climate change. And the negative and positive consequences of climate change. Ended up with a lot of basic reports as you would expect. As we don’t know if climate change is good or bad for us yet. They were not able to cover this topic as hoped. The feedback was that the IPCC played down the positive impacts of climate change.
Humans are having an impact on climate change and probably a major one. But we will don’t know the entire extent. I seriously don’t think we will have catastrophic changes in a few decades, but its certainly going to cause an impact.
So much data, so many ideas. I am not backing the posts. They are just some ideas out there on how many decades before change is to happen. Arduino Tronic has post this on youtube with the year 2019-2029 being when the weather starts to change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VblusvRZ7wA
The world is full of jackasses that can produce cheap talk and articles, folks that have the chops and put in time doing real study are much more rare.
You can actually learn something from this guy, David Barber.
Dr. Barber obtained his Bachelors and Masters from the University of Manitoba, and his .
He was appointed to a faculty position at the University of Manitoba in 1993 and received a Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science in 2002.
He is currently Associate Dean (Research), CHR Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources. Dr. Barber has extensive experience in the examination
of the Arctic marine environment as a ‘system’, and the effect climate change has on this system. Dr. Barber has published
over 200 articles in the peer-reviewed literature pertaining to sea ice, climate change and physical-biological coupling in the Arctic marine system.
He led the largest International Polar Year project in the world, known as the Circumpolar Flaw Lead system study.
He is recognized internationally through scientific leadership in large network programs
This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. It is now well known that sea ice in the
Arctic has changed in both extent and thickness over the past several decades. In fact the change in sea ice is seen as one of the
key global climate variables confirming model estimates of global scale warming of our planet through the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process. Extensive investigations at the leading edge of
Arctic System Science have recently uncovered a number of surprises, many somewhat counterintuitive,
each having significant consequences in the Arctic and through teleconnections to the rest of our planet.
In this talk I will review the rate and magnitude of change in sea ice, put this into the context of our understanding of the ‘natural variability’
in sea ice over the past several thousand years. I will then review seven surprising impacts of this change:
1) increasing coverage of young ice significantly changes atmospheric chemistry;
2) more snow both preserves and destroys ice;
3) Polar bear habitat can actually improve in some areas while deteriorating in others;
4) match-mismatch timing in the marine ecosystem increases vulnerability;
5) uncertainty as to whether the Arctic ocean will increase or decrease in overall productivity is a key unknown;
6) evidence that ice hazards are actually increasing while the world marshals to increase development of Arctic resources; and
7) evidence that our recent cold winters are actually linked to our warming Arctic.
Yes, apples and oranges. Mr. Tronic and Mr. Jonasson were showing historical cycles. The earth is known for repeating cycles. Mr. Barber is a scientist and is making observations. To totally disregard earth’s history is questionable as to who the jackass is.
David Barber (2015)
Earlier this year, Stein et al., 2017 published a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice variations throughout the Holocene that appeared to establish that there is more Arctic sea ice now than for nearly all of the last 10,000 years.
Point being we should look at both the apples and oranges. We should consider everything. No stone unturned.
In the real world, sea walls need to be built as the population is expanding. Therefore, the construction people need real data. Where are they at? They were given sea level rises -
of +0.6 m up until 2050
of +2.6 m up until 2100
and +17.5 m up until 2300
As there is no one set of enforcement nationwide, each state can set its own values. The insurance and bonding companies need to insure the projects and banks need to make sure the best data and construction is used so these long-term loans will be paid off.
What the industry is using today.
well below 0.4 m at 2050 instead of +0.6 m
well below 0.9 m at 2100 instead of +2.6 m
well below 2.9 m at 2300 instead of +17.5 m
It seems that the real world calls for hard work in the field and deep knowledge in a number of subjects to arrive at workable numbers in a correct and meaningful way.
It seems like when reading the data or reports like the David Barber video. One needs to put it in contrast with where the cycle is at in the time period that the report covers. Weather not only moves in cycles. It moves in leads and lags over time. It is not one smooth movement at all. The pictures can change when viewed in a larger time scale as to what the norm is.
Note, I am using sea level rise because it is directly connected to ice levels. I am not claiming Mr. Barber is wrong or right. I am saying that his report did not include much climate history. But it did give us great information on what is going on today.
Someone who’d would rather have his climate science distilled though an insane politicized mind such as Anthony Watts, and even crazier dude than that slob.
- rather than read the actual papers themselves, or to hear what the real scientists have got say about them.
I doubt anyone else out there give a damned one way or the other - the comfort within their respective bubbles beats facing the reality we are creating for ourselves.
No Mike, These aren’t for you! - I put them up here, just in case someone wants to listen to a serious guy discuss some damned serious issues,
in an intelligent constructive manner.
something MikeYohe has shown us he has absolutely no interest in - his heart and soul and brain are dedicated to chasing his worthless tail.
So spare me your idiot fantasy monologues of pure bellybutton bs that totally ignores the realities infolding upon our planet.
But when a warm air influx carves a wide-ranging above-freezing hole into the heart of what should typically be ice-solid Arctic winter, then maybe it’s time to start re-evaluating the gist of the statement.
(Today, on Sunday February 25, 2018 at 0900 UTC — temperatures rose to above freezing at the North Pole. This event, which is probably unprecedented or, at the very least, an extreme instance in the polar record, is an exemplar — or a good example — of the kinds of wrenching weather changes we can expect as a result of human-caused climate change. Image source: Earth Nullschool [ https://earth.nullschool.net/ ]. Data source: Global Forecast System Model.)
Weather and climate are inexorably married one to the other. Though weather is often variable and tied to locality, climate is broader-ranging and roughly characterized as average weather over 30 years. When climate changes, it ultimately changes average weather. It thus changes the rules in which weather occurs. So you can end up with weather events that are typically not common or have never been seen before — like category six hurricanes, much more heavy rainfall events, historic and unprecedented droughts, and above freezing temperatures at the North Pole during February even as Arctic air is driven south over Europe.
In the context of climate change, what we’re talking about is average global weather across the span of multiple decades. In some locations, this ongoing climate change has resulted in very little perceptible weather change. In other locations, and this is more and more-so the case, the changes to weather are both disruptive and profound.
Posted on 26 February 2018 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Daisy Dunne
The health of millions of people across the world is already being significantly harmed by climate change, a major new report finds.
From driving up the number of people exposed to heatwaves to increasing the risk of infectious diseases, such as dengue fever, climate change has had far-reaching effects on many aspects of human health in last few decades, the authors say.
In fact, the effect of climate change on human health is now so severe that it should be considered “the major threat of the 21st century”, scientists said at a press briefing held in London.
The report is the first from the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, a project involving 24 academic institutions and intergovernmental organisations from across the world. The project plans to release a report tracking progress on climate change and global health every year.
Feeling the heat
The report uses a set of 40 indicators to track the effects of climate change on global health. The first of these indicators assesses the “direct impacts” of climate change on human health, including the effects of exposure to extreme heat and natural disasters. ... (read on the details are not pretty)