It's the same old skeptic strawmen and talking points. There's nothing new or insightful from that video. It's basically just a bunch of presentations from the Heartland Institute which has a history of misleading and misinforming the public on climate change. Some of the claims are outright lies. For example, Hansen never said Manhattan would be under water in 40 years nor did he predict that the Arctic would be ice free by now. Ya know...the irony of these alarmist predictions is that many of them are manufactured by deniers. Why is that?
Politically accepted is what you should say. When you refuse to listen to the wise words of NASA scientists, what else can you ignore. Somebody has to get this mess settled before Democrats reap more destruction on this nation.
We need those views paid attention to. Why do you think so many scientists are fighting what the Democrats foist on us all? Alarmism is very very bad. We have to help out humans by correcting the alarmists views.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/25/week-in-review-science-edition-85/#more-24281 ← Uncertainty in climate projections Week in review – science edition Posted on August 25, 2018 by curryja | 19 Comments by Judith Curry A few things that caught my eye this past week. Urbanization effects on changes in the observed air temperatures during 1977–2014 in China [link] The war over supercooled water [link] Lovejoy: Spectra, intermittency, and extremes of weather, macro weather and climate. [link] “The record number of tropical cyclones in the 2005 Atlantic season is close to the maximum possible number for the present climate,”[link] Ocean circulation reduces the Hadley cell response to increased greenhouse gases [link] The Antarctic Ice Sheet response to glacial millennial scale variability [link] Surprisingly large impacts from a new equation of state for seawater [link] … ‘The Paradox of Irrigation Efficiency’ [link] Estimating changes in temperature distributions in a large ensemble of climate simulations using quantile regression https://buff.ly/2LpgL3o Assessment of aerosol–cloud–radiation correlations in satellite observations, climate models and reanalysis (open access) [link] Climate response to the meltwater runoff from Greenland ice sheet: evolving sensitivity to discharging locations [link] New article by moi: How to predict Atlantic hurricanes [link] Potential influence of the Atlantic Multi‐decadal Oscillation in modulating the biennial relationship between Indian and Australian summer monsoons [link] A new reconstruction (ice cores & tree rings) shows Arctic sea ice extent in the Barents-Kara Seas region may be the lowest in nearly 1000 years (but barely lower than the 1930’s) [link] + Paper: [link] … The influence of Arctic amplification on mid-latitude summer circulation”. [link] Contiguous US summer maximum temperature and heat stress trends in CRU and NOAA data plus comparisons to reanalyses [link] Review article: #ENSO: its complexity and influence.[link] Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes [link] Reducing uncertainties in climate models – problems with radiative transfer codes [link] “Biased Estimates of Changes in Climate Extremes From Prescribed SST Simulations” [link] Roles of SST versus internal atmospheric variability in winter extreme precipitation variability along the U.S. West Coast [link] Attribution ‘science’ [link] Drop in land use emissions boosted the land carbon sink over 1998-2012. And the fall in emissions was down to “both decreased tropical forest area loss and increased afforestation in northern temperate regions” [link] … Accounting for Changing Temperature Patterns Increases Historical Estimates of Climate Sensitivity [link] New paper shows coral bleaching in Great Barrier Reef extending back 400+ years [link] Aerosols emitted in different regions have very different climate effects. [link] “Hail damage is expected to increase in coming years, largely driven by population growth and suburban sprawl.” [link] Sea ice decline slows. No major record breakers this year. [link] Climate impacts from a removal of anthropogenic aerosol emissions [link] An updated Solar Cycle 25 prediction: The Modern Minimum [link] Estimating the transient climate response from observed warming [link] Florida’s red tide blooms [link] New insights into solar and volcanic forcing of North Atlantic Climate [link] An ocean-sea ice model study of the unprecedented Antarctic sea ice minimum in 2016 [link] Global ocean heat content redistribution during the 1998–2012 Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation negative phase [link] Drought and vegetation change in the central Rocky Mountains and western Great Plains: potential climatic mechanisms associated with megadrought conditions at 4200 cal yr BP [link] … West Antarctic ice sheet ‘more sensitive’ to natural variability than thought [link] In winter water nearest the sea ice surrounding Antarctica releases significantly more carbon dioxide than previously believed [link] What makes wildfires so complex and hard to predict. It’s climate/weather, it’s vegetation patterns, it’s human land use and development, it’s fire management practices [link] Humans cause fires in California spread by Santa Ana winds based on 25 years of data. Why? No lightning[link] Why SST trend in North Pacific is peculiarly negative against warming trend elsewhere since 1958 [link] Assessing the robustness of Antarctic temperature reconstructions over the past two millennia using pseudoproxy and data assimilation experiments https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2018-90 … Warm-Arctic/cold Siberia pattern [link] … Scientists trace atmospheric rise in CO2 during deglaciation to deep Pacific Ocean [link] Unexpected: tree cover has *increased* globally by 2.2M km2 (+7% since 1982) mainly due tof human activity. But complex picture: tropical deforestation & agricultural expansion, temperate reforestation [link] Capturing complexity: Forests, decision-making and climate change mitigation action [link] Polar climate change as manifest in changes in atmospheric circulation [link] Volcanic impact on the climate – the stratospheric aerosol load in the period 2006–2015 [link] Are #heatwaves like the current one becoming more frequent with #climatechange due to increased atmospheric blocking? [link]
It's already hard enough trying convey the rational well measured predictions from the IPCC and the scientific consensus to the laymen. So we don't need deniers making up alarmist predictions that never existed.
I invite you to take any predictions from the IPCC AR5 report and point out any prediction that you feel is "alarmist".
Which bit says climate change is not happening because there are an awful lot of papers there that say it is
I really don't get Robert's position here. He's full bore in denial model while at the same time using Judith Curry to argue for his position. The irony is that JC actually acknowledges that the planet is warming and that humans are a significant component to that warming. The only difference is that she thinks both are less than what the scientific consensus says.
I have not argued the planet is not warming. I am not in denial mode. Judith Curry is a scientist so try to understand what you are being told. As to blaming Humans, again, why did you put humans in charge of regulating climate? I do not understand how that works.
I'm saying that you're not going to find any doomsday or alarmist predictions in their official publications.
It's simple. The climate is modulated by ALL factors. This includes natural AND anthroprogenic processes.
100% wrong. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. That is a fact. And you just denied it, which is why you are and should be labelled a denier.
I have the record of all posters by far, by far ... in posting findings by science on this matter. Only to get taunted and insulted in return. As to politics, I summed it up nicely. A huge amount is available to the alarmists but guess how much is handed to those I speak of presenting science?
Doesn't that tip you off to their declining alarm over climate change? It signals you that you are free to back off and relax more.
You tend to post highly unimpressive dissenters who are far from the mainstream and whose contribution tends to be presentations that are not reviewed and that include ad hom and other bogus argument that would never be accepted in real science. Real science gets verified and reviewed so strengths and defects are known. So, I'm very definitely NOT interested in your sales pitch vids. Nor should anyone else be. I do like Curry, but even she has had to modify her story. I wish she would stick to her efforts to identify problem areas, such as the fact that we have no international law on water rights, and that is a rapidly growing issue as Earth heats. Your bit about money is just plain silly.
Because it has been proven,many times over. The consensus is overwhelming. This is a fact regardless of what you or any politician believes. You denying it doesn't make it untrue, and your denial reflects more on you than it does on the global scientific community or on the science itself.
There's no decline in their message. If anything scientists believe the IPCC is being too conservative with their predictions.
Who was it that declared on this thread that if I read the 5th version of IPCC report, it would relax me of alarm? If not you, read what that poster said to me. Actually you confirmed it once I read you again. Being too conservative means we have less alarm. Thanks for the confirmation.
This translated is your message to Robert. That humans can control climate. If they obey Democrats, we will actually control climate and force it to chill off. Why do you Democrats believe you control climate? By now, we should have seen your programs in action working as you promise and by now we would be chilling back down. I have read your claims since at least 1995 but thus far you are not controlling climate that any of you will admit. Why not admit you control climate?
I present at least 100 or more actual climate experts in my reports. And when you see them, you commence to deny. Then you call me a denier. I explain climate changes. I give concrete examples. i show that I know this topic. I try not to taunt any of you alarmists. But you sure love to taunt me or flat out insult me.
