My numbers come from Berkeley Earth which is founded and funded by AGW-skeptics with the purpose of exposing mistakes or fraud by the scientific consensus. And note that despite their charter they STILL concluded that global warming estimates were inline with what everyone else said it was. And just so you know I'm not cherry-picking I present these datasets as well which corroborate Berkeley Earth. Ocean - ERSST Ocean - ARGO Satellite - RSS Satellite - UAH Conventional - NOAA GlobalTemp Conventional - NASA GISS Conventional - HadCRUT Conventional - Cowtan&Way Conventional - Berkeley Earth (founded and funded by skeptics by the way) Conventional - Coperincus/ECMWF Reanalysis - NCAR 20th Century Reanalysis - CFSR Reanalysis - CERA Reanalysis - MERRA Reanalysis - CHOR Reanalysis - JRA Reanalysis - ERA Reanalysis - ORA-20C Reanalysis - ORA-S4 Reanalysis - NCEP-R1/R2 Analysis - GFS Analysis - ECMWF Analysis - GGEM Analysis - JMA They most definitely are. AR5 is the culmination of 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts to produce a 5,000 page summary of the science. Many of the reviewers are skeptics. If you think I'm wrong you can prove your point by showing a doomsday prediction that has failed to materialize in any of the IPCC publications. I've already come to grips with this reality. Science doesn't know everything and it never will. But, that doesn't mean conclusions aren't possible. Yes. It most certainly is. AGW is not based on climate models. It's based on molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics. It was first predicted by Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896 long before computers were even a thing. The science of global warming has nothing to do with politics. CO2 and CH4 molecules don't know if they're being emitted by a liberal or a conservative. They behave the same way regardless. And just because you wouldn't do anything about it doesn't mean that global warming it isn't happening. I have no beef with your disfavor in government action to combat the problem. What I have a beef with is your misinformation regarding the science. I'm ignorant of a lot of things. And I would agree that I "know eff all about economics". The difference between you and I is that I humbly admit what I don't know and seek out expert advice on those topics. In other words, I don't suffer from the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I'm smarter than everyone on the planet. I know my limitations. And every time I learn something new I realize there are 2 more things worth learning. Just curious...do you really think I'm "woefully ignorant about just about everything" or are you just frustrated right now?
Irrelevant. It also shows that you don't understand the problem. You think of bias only as a bunch of cigar-smoking tycoons around a table plotting to alter data. In reality, cognitive biases are subconscious and involuntary. One of the biases that I mentioned (p-hacking) is widespread in science. Thanks to the magic of p-hacking, we can show that the real cause of global warming is a profound lack of pirates in the world. What you fail to realize is that the more people you have studying something, the more likely it is that your results are wrong. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is no relationship to be found between human activities and global warming. Yet, we have 100 scientists (or teams of scientists) studying the matter. By chance alone, 5 of those scientists will come up with statistically significant results and one of them will have results p<0.01 — considered highly significant. If these 5 studies are published, the consensus will become that humankind is responsible for global warming even though the results are nothing more than a statistical blip. The fact that you have 3,500 experts reviewing the matter only compounds the problem. The below cartoon illustrates the problem well. Again — poor reading comprehension. I said that science doesn't know anything. You respond by saying that science doesn't know everything. Do you understand the difference between those two words? Then you follow up with the claim that "[the fact that science doesn't know anything] doesn't mean conclusions aren't possible." Of course conclusions are possible. Anyone can draw conclusions. So what? Again — none of this is relevant. The fact that you think it is merely shows that you do not understand the argument. The crux of the argument has NOTHING to do with "the science" and has everything to do with science and math. Claimed Research Findings May Often Be Simply Accurate Measures of the Prevailing Bias. Math tells us that. The math has already been published in peer-reviewed journals that you haven't bothered to read. Until you understand what science is, what science does, and how it does it, we cannot have any kind of an intelligent conversation about "misinformation regarding the science." Do yourself a favor and actually learn something about the philosophy of science. If you do so, you'll stop making so many facepalm-worthy statements that misrepresent the topic at hand. I'm glad that you realize that you're ignorant — perhaps you'll take the next step and actually educate yourself rather than spouting off a bunch of nonsense on a forum such as this one. Pick up any book you'd like on critical reasoning, especially books related to the GMAT, LSAT, GRE or other standardized test that has to do with critical reasoning. Yes, I do think you are woefully ignorant about everything you're talking about. Your answers show that you fail to understand: 1. Basic critical reasoning. 2. The philosophy of science. 3. Cognitive biases as they affect science; and 4. Economics. For example, if global warming and flooding and all of that were really a thing, then we would expect to see a drop in prices in areas that would be affected by flooding. New Orleans, for example, is already below sea level. A general rise in the sea level would render New Orleans uninhabitable. People who know that would simply not buy in that area, and the resulting drop in demand would result in falling prices in that area. However, what we see is that Homes purchased in the New Orleans housing market nine years ago have appreciated by an average of $26,890, whereas the national average increased $3,419 over the same period. That simple fact tells me that I don't need to go out and measure sea levels in New Orleans. Thousands of people who live in and around that area have already done so and their knowledge is expressed through prices. That's simple economics. You should try reading up on it.
The people who say Earth has warmed by 1ºF also say that human activity is the reason. You're trying to pick the part you like while ignoring the part you don't like - without even proposing why you made that choice. Biological problems come from the fact that there is change, NOT that it is a couple degrees warmer. The fact that it is toward warmer means issues such as sea rise are a very real - both because of glacial melting and because warming the oceans brings expansion. Your "colder is worse" point is bogus logic. We're dealing with warming. Whether gradual cooling is worse is totally irrelevant. And, suggesting that being colder is "more deadly" in some way is NOT evidence that warmer is better for "humanity".
It's relevant because you claimed the Earth has only warmed by 1F. I showed that it has warmed by 1.1C since the preindustrial era. And I gave you 24 sources that corroborate the Berkeley Earth conclusion. Can you present a dataset that shows the Earth only warmed by 1F? Interesting. Can you back that claim up by a peer reviewed study? Also, there are a lot more people studying electricity, chemistry, medicine, etc. Are those fields even more wrong than climate science? Right...science doesn't know anything. Thanks for the correction. In my defense I took a leap in assuming you meant everything because it is absurd to say that "science doesn't know anything". So in your opinion if science doesn't know anything then how is it possible for scientists to draw conclusions? My statement is relevant because it is in response to what you said "The best that you could possibly claim about your climate models is that they are empirically sufficient, but even then I'd be very willing to argue against that claim." My point is that climate science is not based on computer models. You can remove computer models from the evidence you want to analyze and the conclusion would still be the same. That is the Earth is warming and that humans are a significant cause today. Great. Then show me what the scientific consensus has gotten wrong and show me how to get the right answer. Link to these peer reviewed articles that exist that have the smoking gun that falsifies either that the Earth is warming or that humans are a significant cause. I'm not sure what home prices in New Orleans have to do with global warming and I wonder if the demand crash from Katrina and subprime mortgate crash had something to do with this, but then again I'm just an idiot so it's probably beyond my comprehension right? Anyway back on topic... This is your opportunity to educate me and to show the forum how smart you are. Would you mind answering the following questions. What physical process is causing the troposphere and hydrosphere to accumulate energy at a rate of ~10e21 j/yr? What physical process is causing the stratosphere to cool while the troposphere and hydrosphere warm? We can take a deeper dive into various off shoots and other questions that may arise depending on the answers to these two questions.
I reference Polar bears. They seem to be adapting quite nicely regardless of what the trending data says. In this case, the "science" of sending out "counters" to "count" the populations all at least agree that the populations are getting larger. That seems to indicate that they have more food that overcomes their inability to "change" within their new environment. I know, facts... right?
Rubbish. Just more evidence that you don't understand the argument at all. Are you daft? Another completely irrelevant point. Even if rapid global warming were occurring (it isn't) and even if tons of places are destined to become uninhabitable (they aren't) that simply means that more of us would live in Canada. So what? More proof that you don't understand the argument at all. No one is talking about global cooling. Uhh… yes, it is. If people are more likely to die from cold than from heat, then warmer weather is better for humanity.
Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is The Straw Man Fallacy, reserved for those people who distort, exaggerate, and misrepresent a person's position. As I clearly indicated, in my previous post, since the time of the failed doomsday prediction (198 the Earth has warmed all of 1ºF. It's been 30 years. The prediction has failed to materialize. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications/ I already posted it, but you're unable to read. As you can easily see at https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124#s4 corollary 6: "The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field." Not more wrong. Equally wrong. Surely an educated person such as you must have heard of pessimistic induction. In the same way that scientists drew conclusions in 1840. If you relied 100 percent on the science of 1840, what percentage of what you believed is refuted by the paradigm of 2018? How much of what you believe will have been proved wrong by 2250? Speculation. Pathetic. You really can't follow a simple argument, can you? No one disputes that the Earth has warmed 1ºF since 1988. So what? You're like a kid who notices that the days are getting longer and longer and who exclaims, "If things continue this way, surely the time will come when we will have 24 hours of sunlight!" Well, that ain't gonna happen, kid. And if it did happen, then there's nothing that we could do about it anyway. And even assuming that the time would come in which we would get 24 hours of sunlight a day, no government solution would do anything but make it worse. And before that day came, real estate prices in places like Ecuador would plunge. And, in the end, we'd all end up living in caves or underwater or something else. So there's no need to worry about 24-hours of sunlight a day. But thanks for playing. Yes. That's exactly my point. You have no idea that prices are a means of communicating information. That's because you're ignorant of basic economics. Prices communicate the reality of supply and demand. Do you see that big ball of fire up there? That's called the Sun. It is the source of all the warming we are experiencing and, in all likelihood, will be the source of all the warming we will ever receive unless Jesus makes a second coming and, in that event, we won't have to worry about any of that, will we?
While polar bears are cute, interesting to study and their behavior may be an indicator of change, I don't see a way of extrapolating their success or failure as a harbinger of impact of warming on humans. We don't feed ourselves or choose our habitat the same way polar bears do.
The only science that is falsifiable are first principles. They are the ONLY ones known. How they are applied to a non-linear chaotic climate is where everything could go wrong. ALL of the doom and gloom ARE based on climate models, specifically RCP 8.5 which is the least likely to ever happen. In all this time over the last 30 years the only thing that has happened to climate sensitivity in the IPCC reports is that it widened from 2 to 4 degree range to a 1.5 to 4 degree range. If the models were right that should have narrowed, not widened. As it is, observed science is more closely following the lowest computer models which does not pose a threat to anyone.
Mass population movement is a national security concern. We don't even like there being a tiny trickle from Mexico. Plus, the massive population of areas already very warm are NOT going to move to Canada. First you mention cooling. Then you say "no one is talking about global cooling". Now you're back to talking about cooling. What's up? The situation today is that earth is warming, NOT cooling. More importantly, the problem comes from the change. In fact, specific areas might even get colder due to the change - climate is not changing in lockstep in all areas.
No one is talking about global cooling because the scientists that are predicting that get no coverage and yes, more people die of cold than heat.
No one is talking about global cooling, because this planet is warming. Whether more people die of cold than of heat is the most stupid response one could possibly devise. It could not possibly be more irrelevant. The serious concerns have to do with people movement due to agricultural change, water scarcity, and sea rise.
Coming cooling due to decreased solar activity where we get all our warmth from in the first place. Of course it is relevant because at some point this mild inter-glacial during our 2.5 million year ice age will come to an end. Since there has been no acceleration in sea level rise, tell us how it affected us the last 100 years?
For instance, it was predicted that NY would be underwater by now. This is the NY Battery Park tide gauge since it started recording. Since about 1855 it has risen about 1.48 feet in 164 years. That means by 2100 it will rise another 0.73 feet. Hardly a crisis.
That's like having the Chicago P.D. circa 1925 investigate Al Capone, lol... The governments provide the funding with the mandate that a "crisis" needs to be found; the universities gleefully shower themselves in that funding; and the "scientist/professors" use that funding to line their pockets, write books, get published, and climb the status ladder... Throw on top of that dung heap the media... who can't help themselves from barking "scary scenarios" all over the airwaves... ... and you have yourself a real donnybrook of a doomsday forecast on your hands. -------------------------------- All of them invested in the fraud up to their buster browns!!!! -------------------------------- And what do all of them have in common - besides a complete lack of ethics or morals?? They're all leftwing nuts. None of them make their living in the real world, all of them hate capitalism, and all of them think government should be in control of all means of production. It's the perfect vehicle/weapon for leftwingers to enrich themselves, vilify capitalism, and empower the government to control virtually every aspect of modern human existence. How that isn't obvious to even the most dumbed down simpleton is beyond me.
The global sea level rise chart from NASA satellite data is: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ The increased steepness of that curve is obvious. Why one station in NY appears to differ from that curve is not something I'm interested in investigating, as the issue is global rise, not rise in one station in NY. It's well know that various sites differ.
That left wingers are going to get rich, attack capitalism or "empower" government from fake climate science is easily as ridiculous an idea as one can find on this entire board - including the religion section!
Hey, he has a crackpot conspiracy theory going. We only have hard science on our side. The irony being, we all wish he was right.
Not one tide gauge graph shows any acceleration, anywhere in the world. One would think that is sea levels were accelerating, it would show up in at least one of them. What you don't realize is that is the graph you show is of two different things. Previous to the satellite data, only tide gauges were available but when the satellite data was available, it was tacked onto the tide gauge information. That is the ONLY reason you see any acceleration because of two different measurements. It is the same as tacking on actual temperature measurements to proxy measurements instead of continuing the proxy record. That became Mikes 'hide the decline' since the proxy records were showing a decrease in temperature.
No it wasn't .Your cult made that story up. Remember, we know the actual science, so you can't fool us. We know you're making it all up, for the same reasons we know flat-earthers are making it all up.
Well, you give me 2 choices from which to choose where you are coming from... On the one hand, I find it implausible that anyone can be so genuinely naive and ignorant as to how the world of politics, power, and money actually works. On the other hand, I am ceaselessly amazed at how the average bloke is, in fact, completely ignorant of these things. So, the conundrum is 1) are you really that dumb?? or 2) are you really a hardboiled leftist and understand enough to know that right or wrong never matter. All that matters is winning?? You do understand that Machiavelli was right??
