It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives

Try 22 years. Tree rings indicate 2001 - 2022 is the driest 22-year period since at least 1200 years ago:

The ongoing 22-year drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) has been extremely severe, even in the context of the longest available tree-ring reconstruction of annual flow at Lees Ferry, Arizona, dating back to 762 CE. While many southwestern drought assessments have been limited to the past 1,200 years, longer paleorecords of moisture variability do exist for the UCRB.

• A new tree-ring based ensemble streamflow reconstruction spanning the last two millennia was developed for the Colorado River
  
• The new reconstruction reveals a second-century drought unmatched in severity by any past droughts in the Upper Colorado River Basin
  
• The ongoing 22-year period of low Colorado River streamflow is a rare event, but is not the most severe drought in the past 2,000 years
  

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL098781

 

Try the latest IPCC AR6 instead of the bogus 2007 AR2 which still had the equally but dishonest hockey stick.

There is no imminent tripping point due to cloud mobility. And clouds don't trap more heat as they move higher - they actually block more sunlight.

 

1200 years ago the globe was in the Medieval Warm Period where temperatures were higher than today. There is no global drought going on regardless on what the tree rings say.

 

You have to consider the differences between how land and water influence global temperatures.

The earth's largest land masses and its north and south poles are warming the fastest, mainly because of differences in how these areas reflect energy from the sun.

One thing physics tells us is that water reflects much of the sun’s energy back into the atmosphere, while a land mass absorbs much more of that energy. That means it takes more added heat to raise ocean temperatures than land temperatures. This is why most of the warming we see today is happening on continents rather than over the ocean.

This is true of all land on Earth, but the effect is even stronger near the poles. Here, rising temperatures have melted large amounts of snow and ice—white surfaces that normally reflect the sun's rays back into the atmosphere and keep the areas they cover cool.

"The snow ice surfaces have a very high reflectivity," says Schlosser. "And as you eat away at that, the underlying surface absorbs a lot more energy than it would have otherwise."

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/which-parts-planet-are-warming-fastest-and-why

 

The latest IPCC's predictions/models indicates faster warming towards the 1.5 C point. Do you have a link/page to contradict this?

Can you cite this? I'd like to see that.

 

I'm relatively certain that the Medieval Warming Period was local, not global, though

 

The consensus climate sensitivity is ~ 3 degrees C. The A1B CO2 estimate is a doubling of the historically low CO2 concentration in the next 100 years.

Higher clouds are closer to the sun and will block slightly more sunlight.

 

So both the tree rings and scientists are wrong because you say so?

The 1200 year mark is due to limited southwestern drought assessments.

The science shows that the Medieval Warm Period was due to higher than average solar radiation & less volcanic activity. With less volcanic activity there's less sunlight reflected. Changes in ocean circulation patterns also played a role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. Temperatures since that period are considerable higher now, and cannot scientifically be attributed to the same factors of that period, which (again) proves AGW.

 

Citations please. Not opinion, guesswork or wishful thinking.

 

It was as global as today's warming is. There was not much climate reporting going on outside of Europe. There have been a total of 9 previous warming followed by cooling periods in the current Holocene. In the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods human civilization flourished.

 

Tree rings were used to construct the bogus hockey stick.

 

Sorry to the OP for being off topic here.

 

It doesn't prove anything. There is no scientific proof that the current warming trend which started in the mid 1600's is being driven by human CO2 emissions.

 

That's what I've read too. That it was mostly a regional event.

 

I'll just let you believe that, since you won't provide citations, nor do I want to take up more posts that are off-topic for this thread.

I would hope, however, that you understand that man-made environmental destruction & resources abuse is more important than the endless debate on whether global warming/climate change is AGW or not. If we can curtail our destructive habits & live responsibly, then it won't matter if global warming exists or not - because we'll know it's NOT US doing it. But right now, all evidence points to it BEING US.

 

Show everyone the scientific proof. There is none.

 

My wife was showing off Chat GPT yesterday to some friends and I asked it who won the 1963 Rose Bowl game and it said Wisconsin 42, USC 37. I was at the game and USC won, 42-37. Today, the answer in correct.

Chat GPT: "The 1963 Rose Bowl game was played on January 1, 1963, between the University of Wisconsin Badgers and the University of Southern California (USC) Trojans. USC won the game, defeating Wisconsin by a score of 42-37."

Go figure.

 

I would hope that you understand that the greater the global economic growth the better is the stewardship of the environment. There is no climate catastrophe in the future due to human CO2 emissions.

There is no scientific evidence based proof that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current global warming. There is situational correlation which breaks down quickly upon further inspection. The alarmism is based on computer models which cannot predict the past and of course therefore cannot be trusted to predict the future.

 

Cool! If enough people use it in that way it might break the bookies.

 

You show ME. You're the one trying to disprove the scientific community.

 

We shouldn't be surprised it returns the general consensus.

 

If there is scientific proof as you claim there is it should be very easy to link to proof. But there isn’t. BTW the scientific community also does agree with with the climate catastrophe narrative.


“While it is beyond the scope of this book to debunk the scientific claims of global warmists, we’ll take a brief moment here to note the fatal flaw of global warming alarmism: there is no scientific evidence indicating that carbon dioxide, much less manmade carbon dioxide emissions, control or even measurably impact global climate.

This is true whether you look at data going back 650,000 years, data from the twentieth century, or even data from the past ten years. 2

Alarmist predictions of climatic doom are based exclusively on hypothetical mathematical models that have never been validated against the real world. 3 (For sources that disprove the many dubious claims of global warmists, refer to the Suggested Reading and Viewing section at the end of this book.)

So it’s no wonder the greens resort to procedural hijinks like touting an imaginary United Nations consensus on global warming endorsed by 2,000 scientists, while ignoring a petition signed by more than 31,000 scientists rejecting global warming alarmism. 4 Then there’s the infamous “hockey stick” graph, which UN and other alarmists often cited as the key evidence that global warming is occurring—until the graph was discredited by methodological flaws. 5 And let’s not forget the British judge who barred teachers from showing Al Gore’s global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth without a disclaimer concerning all the film’s errors, which amounted to nearly 100 percent of the film’s scientific material. 6

With so little evidence on their side, it’s unsurprising that global warmists are now reluctant even to discuss the science. “The debate is over,” they insist.”

— Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them by Steven Milloy
https://a.co/87yUAwK

 

'Economic growth' is the very reason why our environment is being destroyed. Look at life before the industrial revolution VS life after the industrial revolution.

Again, your arguments contradict the science. The computer models have not only been mostly accurate (google it), but their accuracy continues to improve. Besides, global warming was predicted LONG before the arrival of fancy computer models.

1837 - Joseph Fourier
In an 1824 paper, Joseph Fourier hypothesized that gases in the atmosphere must create barriers that acted to trap heat. Fourier didn’t yet know what molecular mechanisms were trapping the heat. But in an 1837 paper for The American Journal of Science and Arts, he surmised that over a long period of time, the amount of heat held in by the atmosphere could change — altered by both the Earth’s natural evolution and human activity.
https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicted-global-warming/

1856 - Eunice Newton Foote
Foote’s brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming.
https://theprint.in/science/the-woman-who-predicted-global-warming-in-the-1800s/706373/

1861 - John Tyndall
Much like Foote, he found that water vapor and CO2 were remarkably powerful at trapping heat: Indeed, CO2 could trap 1,000 times as much as dry air.
https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicted-global-warming/

1896 - Svante Arrhenius
In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth's atmosphere to global warming. Arrhenius reached a conclusion that millions of dollars worth of research over the ensuing century hardly changed at all.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

1950s - Hans Suess
Better spectrography in the 1950s showed that CO2 and water vapor absorption lines did not overlap completely. Climatologists also realized that little water vapor was present in the upper atmosphere. Both developments showed that the CO2 greenhouse effect would not be overwhelmed by water vapor. In 1955 Hans Suess's carbon-14 isotope analysis showed that CO2 released from fossil fuels was not immediately absorbed by the ocean. In 1957.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

1957 - Roger Revelle
It was in 1957 that Roger Revelle at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Hans Suess of the U.S. Geological Survey discovered the chemical pathways of ocean CO2 uptake. Their findings showed the oceans to be limited in their ability to absorb the CO2 we released through burning fossil fuels. While their calculations have been refined over time, their basic conclusions have stood the test of time. As Dale Jamieson noted in his recent book Reason In A Dark Time, by the end of the 1950s the consequences of CO2 release were clear enough for policy makers to take note.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2...e-forgotten-history-of-climate-change-science

1972 - Mikhail Ivanovich Budyko
A 50-Year-Old Global Warming Forecast That Still Holds Up
Budyko predicted that Earth's mean global temperature would increase about 2.25°C by 2070 and that the Arctic would no longer be covered by ice year-round by 2050.
https://eos.org/features/a-50-year-old-global-warming-forecast-that-still-holds-up

1972 - John Sawyer
In 1972 John Sawyer, the head of research at the UK Meteorological Office, wrote a four-page paper published in Nature summarising what was known at the time, and predicting warming of about 0.6℃ by the end of the 20th century.
https://theconversation.com/40-year...climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

1975 - Wallace Broecker
One of the first scientists to predict an imminent rise in the earth's temperature due to human output of carbon dioxide, Broecker was credited with introducing the phrase “global warming” into the scientific lexicon in the 1970s. Much of his work focused on the oceans.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/02/19/wallace-broecker-early-prophet-of-climate-change/


Evidence of climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC

 

There is no scientific proof that human CO2 emissions are directly responsible for the current global warming. The links above show no scientific proof.

The models are not able to predict the past. Why is there such a wide distribution of temperature 100 years from now?

My arguments are based on the application of the scientific method.

The environment continues to improve as the standard of living in the US increases as ghe result of economic growth. What examples of degrading environmental conditions in the US do you attribute to increased standard of living?

 

This petition is from the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine. Medicine??? Just how many of these scientists are actual climate scientists?

The petition is very brief. This is what it states:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some major issues with the petition:

Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned a degree.

Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. But more importantly what is the significance of these signatures? The majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering.

Without formal training in climate science the level of understanding remains unknown among those that signed the petition. A key question is not how many of those that signed the petition know climate physics in sufficient depth, but rather how many of those that signed the petition work directly in the field of climate science.

According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?

WHAT DO SCIENTISTS 'That work in the field' REALLY THINK?

• In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.

• In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today.

Source: George Mason University

https://ossfoundation.us/projects/e...s/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence