She is a scientist. Why do you believe she still questions this? Why do a lot of other prominent climate scientists still question this? When you generalize as you just did, no wonder we still question this.
If you notice, we name our scientists and they instantly attack. They do not name theirs and try to leave theirs out so they feel we will not jump their bones and their authority is a political body. I invite them to her debate if they feel so sure they will win. Bowerbird challenged me to papers so I gave her 243 and her reply is she reviewed all of them before. i no more believe that than the claims of the moon being green cheese.
Why does the so called science from the hard core left amount to attacking me all the time and those with me who simply love science and not politics? I suggested not one desert as you handed to me, but deserts in general and for that i get more attacks. Why attack? By asking for desert studies it was not an attack by me. How did the Atlantic become the go to place over climate? The Antarctic has a lot more ice rather than less so I have no idea what you are speaking of. Want proof? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
https://www.inside-guide-to-san-francisco-tourism.com/san-francisco-weather.html San Francisco Weather Why is it so cold!!? Tips for visitors to our city Hint...it's not Southern California. This is for another recent year https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12...day-because-its-about-to-get-real-cold-again/ More “colder than normal” weather on its way to Bay Area I suppose I am now to believe our own meteorologists just lie to us all the time.
The point was that her peers (climate scientists) have gotten a lot of things right and that it was they who made those predictions; not her. My other point is this. When deniers cherry-pick one imperfect prediction like the temperature at 500mb (20,000 ft) between 20N and 20S latitude that was "not right" because the prediction was X and it turned out to only be 50% of X and use that as their platform for calling into the question the entirety of the global warming and the motives behind climate scientists in general then they're either totally missing the point or misinforming their audience or both.
It's harder for us because there is no single person to name. It's a multitude of people. The IPCC alone lists 831 scientists who contributed to AR5 which I've linked to multiple times on this forum. And that's just the IPCC's list. There are literally thousands of scientists I could name to support my position. Which one do you want me to name? Do you want the name of the person who discovered that CO2 was a greenhouse gas or made the first prediction of it's warming effect? I have repeatedly posted that too.
OK, I have read your posts. Declared some of my own bonafides. What are yours? I will not sit and nit pick with you. Why did you think your article in the Atlantic over the lizards at Joshua Tree monument would be of interest? First, I have been there. I know the lay of the desert there. I have also been to Death Valley and to the Mohave Desert and the Sonoran Desert and those in Nevada and Utah and the deserts of AZ and NM to name some.
Heck, Water (in gas form) is a green house gas yet you do not feel dire danger from it. What about a true strong green house gas such as Methane? What makes you fear Carbon Dioxide, a heavy gas more than other gasses?
A denier is someone who rejects all experimental evidence and observations that support AGW. This almost always necessitates making wholesale denials of all science. This then leads to accusations of fraud and conspiracy in an effort to work around logical inconsistencies in their arguments. Note, you and Judith Curry are not what I would call deniers. You are what I would call skeptics.
Science works well due to skeptics. It is an important part of the process. What are peer reviews if not done by skeptics. Curry has more actual lab time than I have on this topic. I have none. But I did start to seriously study this in 1980. Well before all this nonsense was going on. This is my honest assessment. So what. In two words, that sums it up for me. I am supposed to start driving tiny cars over this? I am to be bullied by my state over this? Who profits?
It's because CO2 is the primary initiator for warming. Water vapor is almost entirely throttled by CO2 concentration. In other words, if we hadn't pumped huge quantities of CO2 into the air the atmosphere would not have warmed since 1960 which means WV would not have increased. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. We should be concerned with it's concentration in the atmosphere. We should monitor and regulate it just like CO2. But, much of the methane that accumulates in the atmosphere is linked with rising temperatures. If we can mitigate the warming (via CO2 reduction) then we can also mitigate the methane feedback. That's not to say that there aren't direct emissions by humans that should be regulated as well that are not in a feedback with the temperature.
Whining about being persecuted won't make fake claims get any less fake. It doesn't work for Curry, it won't work for you. You're making the assertions, so you're responsible for clearly stating what they are, and then backing them up. You won't do either. You do some vague handwaving about deserts without stating any kind of clear point, and then you demand we spend hours disproving the point that you won't even state. Not gonna happen. Get off your lazy butt and do your own work. There were multiple links to scientific papers in that article. I looked at them. You clearly didn't. And nobody is surprised. Well, of course. You never have any idea of what the science actually says, hence you have no credibility in any of your claims. That's the point I'm making, directly and clearly. Zwally is _one_ study, which all the other studies contradict. The consensus is that Zwally got it wrong. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...share=2541446754571422&utm_term=.528be51f4d9a So, Antarctica is losing land ice. It's losing sea ice. It's losing ice shelves. And we're happy to discuss that.
We pump minute amounts of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We are still measuring it in parts per million. I wish if you make claims, back them up. I suggest a scientific source. As I said, I do not care. We put up so little CO2 that I am sick of caring and looking for the effects only to not see them. To my way of thinking, since daily temperatures fluctuate so much and man is still standing, I do not see the huge fear you apparently have. And one more thing. The information thus far supplied to me couches changes in terms like seems and not will or has.
What? We pump billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. We have increased the CO2 concentration by almost 50% by burning fossil fuels. And if this called "minute amounts" because we measure it in parts per million then what you do you call the quantity of methane we pump into the atmosphere? After that's measured in parts per billion. The claim that WV is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature? That's common knowledge. If it were any other way then something as simple as a hyperactive hurricane would kickstart a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect. But, considering there have probably been umpteen billion hurricanes in the last billion years and not one of them caused Earth to go the way of Venus I'd say we're pretty confident that the WV/temperature relationship is characterized by a stable self-limiting process instead of a runaway feedback process. This is an assertion based on first principal reasoning. Gigatons man...GIGATONS! And if you can't see the effect this is having then you're burying your head in the sand. Even JC acknowledges that CO2 is having a measurable effect on the global mean temperature. And she's a skeptic! Like...maybe a 1. I don't fear the effects of AGW. Maybe that's because I acknowledge the abundance of evidence and I can quantify the best, worst, and likely case scenarios and I can reason through those in mind without emotion. I don't know. Either way, I simply do not fear AGW like some do. You also have to consider that AGW isn't a light switch event meaning that you're not going to wake up one day and say "What the hell just happen?" It doesn't work that way. It's slow persistent tendency to increase the global mean temperature with a lot of random variability embedded in it. Most people won't even recognize what's happening or, if they do, they won't immediately link their behaviors to AGW because the changes will occur over decades in infinitesimally small and incremental changes.
SSSSSHHHHHH!!! To continue to believe in a global warming hoax one MUST believe that there are only really a handfull of scientists who are tied to a hot laboratory bench in Al Gores basement
Irrelevant It is not fear it is concern And have you thought about how climate change will affect your grocery bills?
Why because it is accurate?? I concur as I too am sick and tired of people making vague claims, refusing to state those claims in clear terms, insisting that I do thier homework for them and then complaining that I have not done the right homework Science is about being accurate
CO2 is like the silvering on a mirror - you do not need much to get an effect Again you have provided only a vague claim Please provide some scientific evidence that "minute amounts" of CO2 do not affect atmospheric temperature Oh! And since you like YouTube so much - here are the Mythbusters proving that CO2 increases temperature
There is no hoax. There are those so frightened they craft new laws demanding our autos shrink to the size of toys. The hoax is we are deniers. I say over and over that nature is this way. It warms then cools. We know due to it happening in the past. Thanks to science.
And yet your are disputing that same science that is stating that currently we have pumped too much co2 into the atmosphere It is is not the CO2 that is causing the climate to change then what is driving the change?
Let's try this on for size. I do not care. I am sick of the changes made to my life in the name of AGW. Sick of it I tell you. Ford has announced that next year they vastly change the auto line to the point only the mustang and one other model will be made. I don't drive those but the signal is on the wall, this will happen to my favorite auto makers too. Not because we won't buy the larger nicer more comfortable rides, but pin heads in DC create laws. I have lived long enough to experience the difference in maybe 280 to the levels of now, over 400 ppm, and I frankly can't tell the difference. I do see the drop in desirability in the cars though. It can be 55 here today and be 90 next week. That i can tell. But carbon dioxide is not rising that fast. At long last I get so simply say. I do not mind warm at all. I like it warmer than colder. Oh and those horrible storms? I don't mind some of those either. We had those when I was a child.
