Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The Climate Change proponents should be developing a Plan B to deal with the effects of warming in case warming is not caused by CO2 or people are unable to control their CO2 production.

Stop it with an A bomb like hurricanes?

[Daruwind]

You know that won't work, right? People who have double downed on the "climate change is a myth" line will eventually give it up when it becomes too socially unacceptable to do so. Instead, they will pretend like they never questioned climate change in the first place. Same thing happened with many Americans after the Iraq War became unpopular.

Of course. And they will be in first line shouting that why the hell scientists have done nothing....that they are useless doing some strange research for no gain and humanity good....

Problem lies in those people. (as in majority of politics) They are dragging into discussion emotions, politics and then the simply question is no longer only about facts and science. I´m scientist and from day one i was taught to be always humble with my results, to do math voodoo but try to look for limitation, problems. To have still in mind that we can be wrong. But that is natural learning process. Science is learning from past,from mistakes...per aspera ad astra.

In many areas the partial data or partial results must be interpreted, compiled, estimated and often only the scientist must quess the limitation, parameters to best of his knowledge. That is no conspiracy. There are so many things we do not know. Yet in the end, the global warming either is real or is not. It is simple statement. I just don´t get those opponents, they are as well as a sect, religion. Like some mad christians in middleage

Stop it with an A bomb like hurricanes?

Honestly that was hilarious. I bet the whoever is keeping the big red button is from now on double guarded. Not from some russian spies, from big hairdo itself.

[Genava]

You know that this figure exactly demonstrate the importance of feedback processes? Clearly the changes in insolation from Milankovitch cycles are not matching exactly the changes in temperature, it acts only as a trigger of some feedback processes like sea-ice albedo and greenhouse gases concentrations.

PS - I am not trying tonsay that global warming is not happening, or thstngrapha like the Hockey Stick are necessarily wrong. But I am saying that despite the very insistent claims of the Climate Change proponents, there is room forna reasonable person to be skeptical. The world has gotten warmer since the mid 19th century, but it is questionable that we are warmer nownthan it has ever been in human history. The Hockey Stick graph may well be underestimating the warm periodsnin the past, and underestimating the cool periods such as the a little.Ice Age. I steongly suspect that if younuse the same proxy metrics fornthe recently temperature rise as used to.dterminr previous temperatures, the rise won't be as dramatic as the graph shows

I gave several examples with the same proxy used for the reconstruction. Clearly the differences with Mann graph are not that much important and give a general coherence for his method (which has been confirmed by other scientists for the reconstruction of multi-proxies data, finding the same Hockey stick trend).

Temperature trends over the five past centuries reconstructed from borehole temperature
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter...ure'00.pdf

Reconstructing hemispheric‐scale climates from multiple stalagmite records
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...agmite_records

Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/frae...05_science.pdf

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...st_11300_Years

Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change

The Climate Change proponents should be developing a Plan B to deal with the effects of warming in case warming is not caused by CO2 or people are unable to control their CO2 production.

The plan B is to put aerosols in the upper atmosphere which would be quite dangerous and geopolitically problematic either. You still need a central authority to coordinate this, you still need billions and billions to fund this, you will give financial reparation for some countries because it will strongly affect the weather pattern etc. etc. This is a dangerous way to solve the issue and currently scientists are saying that increasing greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere and putting aerosols to increase albedo in the upper atmosphere will create a strong gradient of temperature that can cause problem in the intermediate zone and any disruption of the system or of the aerosols will cause huge shift in temperature. But if the greenhouse theory is wrong (which is very very unlikely according to NASA and other scientific associations, see the link) then it will be a solution that could be quickly implemented. So don't worry.

From the data (that has not been manipulated by NASA Et al.), it appears that temperature fluctuation is purely natural- we see global temperatures fluctuate throughout history going back millions of years to the dinosaurs etc.- global warming/cooling appears to be cyclical- temperature rise (global warming) followed by global cooling (ice-ages)...followed by temperature rise...followed by cooling...followed by temperature rise (where we are at present), & now some scientists are predicting yet another cold phase to follow global warming.

This is a very esoteric view of the climate. Temperature does not change from nothing. Temperature has not a cycle by itself, it reacts to changes in physical and chemical parameters. Milankovitch cycles for example, but they are not explaining the current warming. Solar activity is another possibility, but the solar activity is stable and slightly decreasing since the 1970s. Greenhouse gases is the main possibility and which is the current source changing significantly and matching the temperature.

There is even some evidence we might be heading towards global cooling akin to the 'Little Ice Age' in the next few decades. In a newly published paper in 'Astrophysics & Space Science'- scientists have predicted that the next two solar cycles 25 + 26 - will be weaker than all of the previous 24.

It is not the first time that deniers are predicting a global cooling from solar activity decreases.

Ole Humlum BS prediction:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64682612000417

Another BS
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/glo...ict-4-9c-fall/

[JP226]

You know that this figure exactly demonstrate the importance of feedback processes? Clearly the changes in insolation from Milankovitch cycles are not matching exactly the changes in temperature, it acts only as a trigger of some feedback processes like sea-ice albedo and greenhouse gases concentrations.



I gave several examples with the same proxy used for the reconstruction. Clearly the differences with Mann graph are not that much important and give a general coherence for his method (which has been confirmed by other scientists for the reconstruction of multi-proxies data, finding the same Hockey stick trend).

Temperature trends over the five past centuries reconstructed from borehole temperature
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter...ure'00.pdf

Reconstructing hemispheric‐scale climates from multiple stalagmite records
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...agmite_records

Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/frae...05_science.pdf

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...st_11300_Years

Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...climate-change





The plan B is to put aerosols in the upper atmosphere which would be quite dangerous and geopolitically problematic either. You still need a central authority to coordinate this, you still need billions and billions to fund this, you will give financial reparation for some countries because it will strongly affect the weather pattern etc. etc. This is a dangerous way to solve the issue and currently scientists are saying that increasing greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere and putting aerosols to increase albedo in the upper atmosphere will create a strong gradient of temperature that can cause problem in the intermediate zone and any disruption of the system or of the aerosols will cause huge shift in temperature. But if the greenhouse theory is wrong (which is very very unlikely according to NASA and other scientific associations, see the link) then it will be a solution that could be quickly implemented. So don't worry.




This is a very esoteric view of the climate. Temperature does not change from nothing. Temperature has not a cycle by itself, it reacts to changes in physical and chemical parameters. Milankovitch cycles for example, but they are not explaining the current warming. Solar activity is another possibility, but the solar activity is stable and slightly decreasing since the 1970s. Greenhouse gases is the main possibility and which is the current source changing significantly and matching the temperature.



It is not the first time that deniers are predicting a global cooling from solar activity decreases.

Ole Humlum BS prediction:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64682612000417

Another BS
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/glo...ict-4-9c-fall/

Any idea as to why the rocks in the water in front of my house in the Keys aren’t submerged? Water marks and level have been at the same spot going back the the 80’s.

[The spartan]

Any idea as to why the rocks in the water in front of my house in the Keys aren’t submerged? Water marks and level have been at the same spot going back the the 80’s.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[JP226]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

?

[Common Soldier]

You know that won't work, right? People who have double downed on the "climate change is a myth" line will eventually give it up when it becomes too socially unacceptable to do so. Instead, they will pretend like they never questioned climate change in the first place. Same thing happened with many Americans after the Iraq War became unpopular.

And the Climate Change proponents will equally double down "that the Earth is warning and we are all doomed" myth as well. If by 2100.the earth hasn't been flooded and humanity wiped out, then they will say it will happen in 2200, if it doesn't happening by 2200 then 2300. We have already seen it with the Arctic Ice Cap - ten years ago the Climate Change proponents said it would be gone in summer. Now ten years later it is not gonex but the Climate Change people still say it will be gone in 30 years in the future, and when it isn't gone by then in 30 years, why then it will be gone another 30 years.



It must be noted that all the real obvious predictions, such as New York being underwater, are ways a ways in the future - likenfusioj, they are always 30 years away. In a 0 years anyone making those predictions will likely be retired, and not around when they don't come true. Climate Change proponents won't repeat the mistake of making a claims her can easily seen to be false only a decade in the future. By making such claims 30+ years in the future, they won't be around when they don't come to pass. Claims like the earth will by 2 degrees, sure, because that is something that average person couldn't verify by themselves.

Just look at the change in the name from Global Warming to Climate Change, so that no matter what happens to the climate it will be due to CO2 produced global warming. .glaciers covering New York? That will be blamed on human produced CO2, in fact no matter what happens tongue climate it will be a system of global warming even if things get cold.

[Daruwind]

Making conclusion from single point is meaningless. No offence if 10 places over globe gets more water and you less, the global trend is easy to see. But not from local spot...

To what reasons might be, multiple....

Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.

Look at map
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl.../sltrends.html

the change is in mm per year. Like 3 around Florida...that is around 90 mm per 30 years, if the trend was little less before, that might be around 75 mm? What is difference of sea level at low tide / high tide? The best map I was able to find is lower one. So it looks liek 40 cm in your place...400 mm difference per day versus slow increase fo 75 mm per 30 years. That is one small rock up. You sure you could not miss it?

[The spartan]

And the Climate Change proponents will equally double down "that the Earth is warning and we are all doomed" myth as well.

I am pretty sure the "Climate Change proponents", at least in this thread, are recommending we listen to the research scientists and scientific organizations are providing. And I don't think the scientists are "doubling down".

[Ludicus]

... recommending we listen to the research scientists and scientific organizations are providing. And I don't think the scientists are "doubling down".

The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), completed in November 2018, is a comprehensive and authoritative report on climate change and its impacts in the US. Vol I + II: follow the link: National Climate Assessment
It's a report from Trump's government.His own government. The report warns of devastating economic and healthy impact. So, what happened then? The insane President on own administration climate report: "I don't believe it". "The concept of global warming was created by Chinese".

[Genava]

Just look at the change in the name from Global Warming to Climate Change, so that no matter what happens to the climate it will be due to CO2 produced global warming.

That's your argument? You are at this level of naivety?
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...ther_name.html

I prefer to be a climate change proponent than a climate change ignorant.

And the Climate Change proponents will equally double down "that the Earth is warning and we are all doomed" myth as well. If by 2100.the earth hasn't been flooded and humanity wiped out, then they will say it will happen in 2200, if it doesn't happening by 2200 then 2300. We have already seen it with the Arctic Ice Cap - ten years ago the Climate Change proponents said it would be gone in summer. Now ten years later it is not gonex but the Climate Change people still say it will be gone in 30 years in the future, and when it isn't gone by then in 30 years, why then it will be gone another 30 years.

It must be noted that all the real obvious predictions, such as New York being underwater, are ways a ways in the future - likenfusioj, they are always 30 years away. In a 0 years anyone making those predictions will likely be retired, and not around when they don't come true. Climate Change proponents won't repeat the mistake of making a claims her can easily seen to be false only a decade in the future. By making such claims 30+ years in the future, they won't be around when they don't come to pass. Claims like the earth will by 2 degrees, sure, because that is something that average person couldn't verify by themselves.

The strawman argument continues. Climate change is a matter debated in scientific publications. Al Gore is not the authority, any writer publishing for the general audience is not an authority even if he has a scientific background, a newspaper is not an authority etc. What matters is the data, the facts and arguments to support the prediction and how much it is likely. Doomsday prediction is not a common thing in scientific literature.

You seem very severe and skeptical about anything coming from "climate change proponents" but you are clearly using a double standard when it comes to believe ignorants and deniers stuff.

[B. W.]

More pain for man made climate change proponents:

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the...-five-minutes/

[Genava]

More pain for man made climate change proponents:

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the...-five-minutes/

Once again, using raw data without the necessary and very justified corrections like changes in observation methodology (like time of observation).

See the FAQ: Long-term temperature record - Australian Climate Observations Reference Network
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

[Daruwind]

More pain for man made climate change proponents:

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the...-five-minutes/

1) Why is he using daily max and not daily means? Especially if he is comparing it to annual mean change from BOM

2) after some googling, there seem to be like 1800+ stations..why is he using just those few? Others are so new?

3) There is no explanation of what he is doing with data...like it seems he just put everything into one graph which is clearly not good idea.

[Ludicus]

Pause for humour- Soderlund is my favorite candidate for the IgNobel prize of economics.
Scientist suggests 'eating human meat' to tackle climate change

Well, he was deadly serious. I think he might have been inspired by...

[Genava]

"""Scientist""" a nice tentative to build a strawman argument in the media

[Daruwind]

Well technically WW3 / Nuclear War would solve a problem or two...

[Ludicus]

In this era of ignorance and obscurantism, beware Trump, the supreme Inquisitor.






Government Scientists Are Censoring Themselves - Scientific

In December 2016 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) canceled a scientific conference on the link between climate change and public health. ..officials decided to call off the event rather than risk conflict with an incoming president who has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax."
This isn't the only example of likely self-censorship among scientists. The fear of being targeted by this administration is even driving scientists outside of the government to self-censor. An analysis conducted by National Public Radio (NPR) found that the use of the term "climate change" in the title and summaries of grants awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) was down by 40 percent in 2017 compared with 2016.
The administration also made an example out of Joshua Tree National Park Superintendent David Smith by flying him all the way to Washington, D.C., to publicly slap him on the wrist for tweeting out science-based climate change information.

A New Survey of US Federal Scientists Should Concern All of Us

Governments employ scientists because they provide essential expertise in the making of evidence-based policy. But when an administration is not interested in the best available science, those experts are no longer useful.
As of June 2018, President Trump had failed to appoint 58 of the 83 government posts that the National Academy of Sciences designates as "scientist appointees."
In fact, the Trump administration's disregard for science has been so overwhelming that Columbia Law School started tracking every single way the government has silenced science in the past year and a half. The running list already has over 150 examples listed.
Now, an anonymous survey has finally let federal scientists speak their minds.
The study, which surveyed more than 4,211 federal scientists from 16 different agencies with shady records of scientific integrity, suggests there is indeed political interference in the science policy process.
The survey has been published by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
We are no longer authorized to share scientific findings with the public if they center on climate change. Materials are marked as only for internal use."
Effects range from anger and frustration to depression and even opting to retire early. Twenty-five years of experience with 3 federal agencies and I've never seen anything like this—it is appalling."

[Daruwind]

That is sadly politics. Like facts are facts, you cannot change them. You may not like the results and shut down scientist but this will hardly change the reality. Like if society decides to use highway to hell...

[B. W.]

Once again, using raw data without the necessary and very justified corrections like changes in observation methodology (like time of observation).

See the FAQ: Long-term temperature record - Australian Climate Observations Reference Network
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

1) Why is he using daily max and not daily means? Especially if he is comparing it to annual mean change from BOM

2) after some googling, there seem to be like 1800+ stations..why is he using just those few? Others are so new?

3) There is no explanation of what he is doing with data...like it seems he just put everything into one graph which is clearly not good idea.

I see your point. It's unscientific to pick and chose data to make the result come out the way you want it to! Of course if you're being paid to manipulate data then it's OK.

Meanwhile, the yearly fiasco of AGW fools going to the poles to see the melting sea ice and having to be rescued because they've become stuck in ice continues:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...polar_ice.html