Climate Change denial vs History

So what natural phenomena is driving it this time?

 

Pretty much a total disconnect from reality and a reliance on logical fallacy. The 'predictions' of the last 20 years have a success rate of exactly zero. Science academies that do no climate science but jump on the bandwagon are irrelevant. You don't know any of the scientists or positions other than the 'popular' ones because of lack of curiosity and open mind.

 

They tried to replace the accurate buoy temperatures with measurements taken in ship intake manifolds --- because they didn't like the hiatus --- but were called on it. A couple of questions:
(1) Since CO2 concentrations are increasing, how do explain the hiatus in global temperatures over the last 18 years?
(2) If the science has been settled for years, why did we just send a satellite up to study the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation?

If you don't know the effect of clouds on temperature, compare night time temperatures when the sky is clear versus cloudy.

 

And climate change supporters have a very poor track record of predictions although they have a wealth of post hoc explanations.

Pity about the multiverse thing. I guess we will have to wait until this generation of physicists die out before physics can start to progress.

 

That's what we keep coming back to, that "it's true because everyone knows it's true". When we say we want to see the evidence we are told...

Anyone can show the existence of AGW by presenting a set of measurements that indicate rising temperatures. There are hundreds of data sets available and all are ignored by the AGW advocates because they fail to show a warming trend. If measured quantified observations are not there then we can not scientifically state it's there.

 

The earth warmed after the Little Ice Age and the temperature has reached a plateau. The PhD who gave us the hockey stick curve, Michael Mann, is a geologist by education. Along the way to alarmism, he had to wipe the Vikings out of the history books. In fact, climate alarmists have wiped a number of civilizations from history and our new, improved progressive education system backs up any fraud required to promote their disastrous policies.

 

And what do you get when you burn CH4? CO2 and H2O.

 

There is a 98% agreement that the planet is warming exactly why has no such agreement.

 

The science is never settled. No body of study has been more wrong, more often than science, which is why science is never settled.

 

The AGW hypothesis started out as science but quickly morphed into politics as the anti fossil fuel and anti American crowd latched on to it. It is now nothing more than group think and lockstep liberalism on display. The hypothesis has failed every real world test and every prediction of catastrophe has failed to materialize and now the true believers want to base public policy on this failed hypothesis that they somehow have labeled "settled science". A hypothesis is the antithesis of settled science and AGW is barely hanging on to hypothesis status much less reaching the level of even a theory or so called settled science. Only in some alternate universe could AGW be equated to something like scientific law as in the law of gravity this is proven and demonstrable.

 

So, you don't deny that the earth has always gone through warming cycles and CO2 has never played a part in the warming of the earth. You also don't deny that even with the CO2 levels of where they are now, they are no where near the highest they've ever been, nor has the earth warmed in relation to the levels they are now. Also, you don't deny that CO2 is good for plant growth, and the more there is, the better our food supply will be. Also, you don't deny that cold weather kills life, and a warmer earth is better for plant and animal life to flourish. You also wont deny that atmospheric temps haven't changed in 18 years, but the reading on the surface have changed primarily to measuring in the city vs where there was no city before. So, if you don't accept all of this, which is fact, you ignore it all for the premise that all the warming is due to man, and you are no longer a believer of science, but the religion of science that has no facts to back it up.

 

Earth's orbit

 

It's gonna make their heads spin when we fall into an Ice Age in the next decade or so. Check out the sunspots. After telling us that the bright light in the sky has nothing to do with changes in the earth's temperatures, it'll be tough for warmunistas to argue that the sun caused the hiatus and decline in temperatures.

 

There are many things that contribute to the trigger of switching from cold to mild and mild back to cold and no one has the one answer yet. I read a study not too long ago that says we just missed it and the next window will be in 400 years, something to do with the orbit of the moon.

 

Ignoring the history of scientists having been wrong about things at least as often as they are right about it throughout history aren't we?

 

If what you are looking for is the evidence itself, you're not going to find it in an Online forum. You'll find it in peer-reviewed magazines, and peer-reviewed studies.

I know just googling it might get messy, because you'll find as much BS as trustworthy information. But you can start with the references on this article from Science Magazine published in 2004. That's just a start.

By opening this forum what I have tried to discuss on this thread is how Science itself works. And how a Scientific Consensus is achieved.

 

No. There is 100% agreement that the planet is warming. That's not even Science. That's just a measurement.

The burden of proof that the scientific community has met is to have been able to trace the specific components of global warming to their source. And, having done that, they have concluded, with the highest degree of certainty that Science can offer (which is actually generally considered to be about 95%) that it was due to human activity.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the debate would benefit by understanding what Science is, and is not. Science is not just a set of measurements. It's about explaining why those measurements are the way they are.

 

And that is not agreed to at all. In Russia it is attributed to Solar fluctuations. Others think that changes in land use are a more significant contributor than CO2. there is no consensus as to the cause of warming. Hell there is no real proof that it is still happening. Hell there is no proof any sort of correlation between increases in CO2 and warming. CO2 has been increasing almost constantly while temperature has been a series of plateaus interspersed with periods of slight temperature increases.

 

Climate in general is so complex that it belies the notion of the science of Climate Change being settled. I am on Dr. Judith Curry's mailing list. She was an insider until she came to the conclusion that it's a monstrous problem that no one has a handle on. I spent a career in science ,,, much of it developing computational methods for transient two-phase multi-component flow and heat transfer (Loss of Coolant Accident Analysis). After dealing in a science that is based on similar physics, albeit more violent, I know the shortcomings of the models warmunistas claim capture the settled science

 

You probably would benefit from reading-up on what that position actually is because you seem to be confused. All it says is that the surface temperature of the planet is increasing, and that the increase is due to human activity. Period!

None of the gardening tips you provide have any relevance on this, I'm afraid.

 

The measurements are taken at discrete locations. Hook us up with your study of the discretization error that proves your point.

 

Not really. Click here for the statement signed by the Russian Academy of Science.

Ok. I'll say it one more time: In science, it's absolutely irrelevant what anybody thinks. The only thing that is relevant is what they can prove. And the path to proving things is with peer-reviewed studies.

That's how Science works. Don't shoot me if you don't like it.

 

It is also the way those with an agenda driven view try to control the conversation.

 

It was a graph posted here some months back. By the way I'm not certain that an average temperature for a planet is a a particularly meaningful bit of datum to begin with especially when one cannot or will not explain how one collects temperature data and determines what are and are not anomalous data points.

 

The Paris agreement was in doubt because the Russian academy was never on board but politics changed that.