As Climate Worsens, a Cascade of Tipping Points Looms

Just pointing out that there is more than one “Dr Phil” in the world and as usual you failed to provide specifics
How long ago was this “controversy”?

 

From where and is that happening now?

 

There’s no way global warming of 0.03 degrees Centigrade per year produces those temperatures. It’s the result of weather.

 

I also pointed out that warming precedes CO2 increases and that doesn't negate the fact that increasing CO2 increases the surface temperature of the earth.
I don't know why this is so hard for you or anyone else to understand. I have discussed this previously. Increasing solar insolation slowly increases the top
layer of the ocean and carbon dioxide is slowly released because of its decreased solubility. As carbon dioxide slowly builds up in the atmosphere it radiates
energy downward to the earth's surface which causes the surface temperature to rise. This causes the release of more carbon dioxide from the oceans and the process
keeps on repeating in a positive feedback loop. There must be sources of negative feedback to put a cap on the rise in CO2 and temperature. Anyone looking at the close
fit between CO2 and temperature must wonder how there could be no relationship between those 2 parameters and still be such a tight fit.

 

Then the same has to be said about Shooks post - are you disputing his/her post?

 

You don’t know about the East Anglia University scandal ??

 

Oooh! Goody then when can we expect your published paper proving this hypothesis?

 

Your post is irrelevant to the unproven claim that CO2 is driving the current warming.

 

How long ago was this scandal? How many investigations into it were there and what was the outcome of those investigations?

Really old chap one must stay current

 

Shook agreed that Australia is warm in the summer.

 

Unproven!!!

 

Did he/she?

 

I didn't say what caused it.

 

Tell us all about it. Have they ever recovered the actual data ???

 

And has it been “thrown out”?

 

It’s weather.

 

It’s arithmetic.

 

No, corrupted data has not been thrown out. That’s a problem. And that is why non satellite data is at best useful only qualitatively.

 

And you know this how?

 

My references which I’ve shared with you.

 

The IPCC AR5 report on drought gave a medium confidence of an increase in intensity/duration of droughts on a regional scale but a low confidence on a global scale. They found no increase in floods attributed
to human influence but they did find an increase in intense heavy rainfall events which seems to be contradictory.




The text below is from carbonbrief.org, "What the IPCC report says about extreme weather events"
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-events

Some of the future projections come with caveats. So the report says it’s very likely – or 90 per certain – there will be more heavy rainfall “over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions”. Mid-latitude land masses include regions like the US and Europe. These wet parts of the world are generally projected by climate models to get wetter, whereas some parts of the world are projected to dry.

Scientists are slightly less certain about changes to drought in the future, as was the case when they looked for changes in past drought trends. It’s still likely (66 per cent certain) droughts will become longer or more intense by the end of the century. In many dry regions, soils are predicted to dry out as temperatures rise and atmospheric circulations of water change.

On hurricanes, climate models predict it is more likely than not – meaning that there is over a 50 per cent chance – that the number of the most intense storms will increase in certain parts of the world. Globally, however, the IPCC says it’s likely the number of tropical cyclones will “either decrease or remain essentially unchanged”. It’s hard to make predictions about these types of storms as the processes involved occur on much smaller scales than climate models can currently replicate.




With other types of extreme events, changes in past trends and any human contribution are harder to spot. Take hurricanes for example – there’s no clear pattern suggesting how they’ve changed the world over. But scientists have identified certain parts of the ocean, like the North Atlantic, where the number of intense hurricanes has increased since the 1970s. Drought trends also differ from region to region, with a global picture unclear.

One extreme missing from this picture is flooding. At the moment scientists don’t have enough data to make conclusive statements about changes in the last few decades, or make predictions about the future.

 

You mean the book you can’t remember the title of to even post that again?
Was it this book?
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/lily-cole-climate-change-free-children-book/
Or this book?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781119522850
Or one of these
https://www.allyoucanbooks.com/page...MImoSK-qjK5gIVQRuPCh3Eywy1EAMYASAAEgL5-fD_BwE

 

It's relevant in that it is evidence that carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas and that its rapid rise since 1970 should have a significant impact on the global climate.

 

Yet the rate of temperature change has slowed but CO2 hasn’t.

 

Those levels of confidence are based on opinion and have nothing to do with statistics. They are meaningless.