Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


older | 1 | .... | 4089 | 4090 | (Page 4091) | 4092 | 4093 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    The El Nino ended in 2016, almost two years ago. Since its end, the GMST has been so warm the 30-year trend has gone up: https://i.imgur.com/x9iKAkO.png The bad guys are falling behind. So sorry.

    0 0

    That's because of your definition of a feedback that doesn't allow for such a thing as a no-feedback response or a net positive feedback. It's what happens when you don't use the feedback loop definition that you have not yet even shown a dim light of understanding.

    0 0

    Not if you do the numbers. For a 2.3-2.5 C effective TCR you only need 0.15-0.2 C per decade with the last 50-60 years of CO2 increase which is what we have from the in situ thermometer record. RSS supposedly using the same data as UAH has a trend of 0.2 C per decade since 1979.

    0 0

    Oh my, what would Feynman say? 30-year trends: GISS - .19 ℃ per decade HadCrut4 - .17 ℃ per decade UAH6.0 - .14 ℃ per decade RSS4.0 - .22 ℃ per decade BEST - .20 ℃ per decade

    0 0

    Dr. Curry: “Good analysis: Academics should not be activists [link]” Article: “Academia becomes seen as nothing more than an extension of politics… . Now when academics make a claim that is even mildly counter-intuitive or controversial, anyone who doesn’t want to believe it will simply refuse to accept its epistemic authority. They will attribute such claims to the politico-moral ideology of the researchers.” Clearly, the topic of climate change has become politicized and subsumed by a left versus right political-moral ideology divide. Dr. Curry should consider if the perpetuation of this extraneous divide mainly serves to poison and impede rational science discussion and debate—the raison d'être of her website—and explicitly ban any comments reflecting partisan political ideologies.

    0 0

    HAS, you interpret understanding the risks as predictions of megawarming. This is the problem with the debate in a nutshell. It should be about risk mitigation, trends and timelines, which alone leads to the sense of urgency as exemplified by the SR15 report.

    0 0

    Agreed, though of course let's hope the ad homs are kept out of it. (One can dream)..Dr. Judith, how about a separate post on same? As I understand things, this is really the major issue when it comes to "climate change." Even the IPCC concedes it can't make much of a case for more "extreme weather." And the notion that a couple of degrees of life enhancing warmth is an existential threat "to the planet" is laughable. So that leaves sea level rise as the thing to worry about. Or so it seems to me..

    0 0

    You can do it Judith. I see you are responding to comments elsewhere. I'll just assume for now you are gathering your thoughts and doubt checking on the voluminous documented record of Cliff Mass's efforts at communication.

    0 0

    History of science won't be kind to her ;-)

    0 0

    You're wrong.

    0 0

    The PAWS was a political weapon. Now it's not.

    0 0

    Meanwhile, the climate community totally ignores the effects of the lunar tides on climate: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PZlZOTa5rgA/XBGhHwAxsdI/AAAAAAAABX8/H5KJS8LmcdczoGHHrHIZUTbC1tcqaZjKACLcBGAs/s400/rranom.vic.0112.19917.png

    0 0

    JimD: “I did nothing of the sort…” Yes, you did. Catastrophe narrative = a claim of high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, which you agreed is wrong wrt to the actual position of mainstream climate science. “It’s a personal judgment term…” We’ve been through this many times before. It is most certainly *not* a personal judgement, because the presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and businesses and orgs are speaking for their countries and communities, and most certainly are *not* perceived as merely individuals speaking only about their personal opinions. “If you don’t think those things are catastrophic…” As noted repeatedly on other threads, it’s nothing to do with what I think, or indeed what you think. It’s what people perceive regarding the powerful catastrophe narrative propagation from their presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and businesses and other authorities / orgs. “…it is an emergency because…” The nature of the risks as communicated by all those listed above, is by virtue of being an unsupported narrative claiming high certainty of an imminent global catastrophe, in an entirely different category to whatever real threats mainstream science actually supports. You have already agreed that mainstream science does not support a high certainty of an imminent (decades) global catastrophe, yet this is what all the above authorities claim, and they claim it in the name of mainstream science. This message eclipses whatever it is that mainstream science actually says. Or are you suddenly jumping ship, and joining the camp of those who strongly disagree with the IPCC / mainstream, and say that global catastrophe is indeed imminent. Your objections to skeptics who raise the issue of the catastrophic say this isn’t so…

    0 0

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MdYK0M033mo/XBGiJXU2HQI/AAAAAAAABYE/L-ImxNbZ6CMuLGLkhmXrKrH4VtGC49JHACLcBGAs/s400/Lunar_Victoria.jpg

    0 0

    Sea ice is an area where the models underestimated the loss rate in the previous IPCC report, and not by a little. The skeptical sites seemed to have not put much focus on this particular model failure. It's an example of worse than we thought. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=35

    0 0

    andywest, as far as I know people have not said catastrophe within decades, but the need to act within decades to avoid catastrophe. There is a difference. But given that 2 C has some serious consequences and could be reached in less than five decades at the current rate, it depends what you mean by decades and how serious you need it to be to count as catastrophic, which again I emphasize is a personal judgment, and while you say it doesn't matter what you think, it does matter what they think. They consider floods, coastal loss, famine and ecosystem loss as catastrophic, so who are you to tell them not to think that or to reset their threshold for catastrophic. We don't do thought police here. There is freedom of expression. If they have a lower bar than you for what they care about, that's your opinion. There is no objective measure of what is catastrophic, but any irreversible damage would qualify.

    0 0

    The only way to attack science is to produce better science, not to accuse the scientists of groupthink, money-grubbing, or worse, a conspiracy of fr@ud. When the denialists' best effort is Monckton, they still have some way to go for credibility.

    0 0

    HAS, the costs of climate change versus mitigation have been done. On the climate change side, we have the estimates of the social cost of carbon, and the IPCC WG3 gives the mitigation costs of stabilizing the climate. It turns out that the mitigation plan is ten times cheaper than the damage/adaptation/retreat plan by 2100. I use the bailing out a leaky boat analogy. Adaptation is bailing out ad infinitum, while mitigation is just plugging the hole once and for all.

    0 0

    Jim D: <i>I did nothing of the sort. I have stated that what science views as a higher risk of droughts, famines, coastal flooding, loss of ecosystems, fresh water, more disease, etc., a person may well attach the term “catastrophic” to. It’s a personal judgment term that they are entitled to depending on what they care about most. Catastrophic implies irreversible damage, and that is what we are looking at in many cases. If you don’t think those things are catastrophic, that is your own judgment of the predicted impacts. </i> Have you joined the side that says "CAGW" is not a straw man? You wrote it out pretty clearly.

    0 0

    When we take a 1000 year perspective, fossil fuels will not last to provide the transport fuel/energy etc. So we need to transition to sustainable dispatchable power and transport energy. Effectively fusion. Solar is existing fusion at a safe distance. Now need to make that cheaper than coal and gas - and to develop terrestrial fusion. So the strategic perspective - and make effective use of fossil fuels as our "training wheels" to help us develop the technologies and economies so we can get the solar/fusion going.

older | 1 | .... | 4089 | 4090 | (Page 4091) | 4092 | 4093 | .... | 4134 | newer