Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They're stating an opinion, not scientific fact. Scientific evidence proves that the earth's climate has been much warmer before humans even existed, and there is no correlation between CO2 levels and how warm or cold the earth's climate is. Clearly, other factors also have significant impact on earth's climate. How did they rule out those other factors?
LLNL's finding that humans are driving temperatures upward with fossil CO2 are scientifically proven with 99.99994% confidence. At that confidence level theories become facts. They did not rule out other natural climate change factors -- those factors were present when all of the measurements were taken.
They proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that manmade CO2 is the number one climate forcer today and it is swamping all of the natural signals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Here's the same scientists concluding that the earth's perpetual and natural climate change negatively impacted mesohumans (500-1150 AD) before industrial age humans even emitted CO2
This proves nothing. Just because Factor A in prehistoric times changed the climate that doesn't mean that Factor B can't be dominant today.
I believe in the scientific method. I'll be happy to become a climate denier when there's hundreds of studies in respected journals and over 90% of scientists say that climate change isn't real. Until then, I'm putting my money on the 99.99994% confidence level.
This I do know. The weather in the US has changed in my lifetime. It has become more extreme. More heat, more cold. More snow, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods. And because of warming in the summers, planting zones have shifted.
Are you sure? Take a look at the records.
Winter snow extent is up slightly since the late 1960s.
Strong tornadoes are down sharply.
Hurricane frequency and intensity since 1900 are also lower.
Floods are a little tougher to judge, because what was yesterday's uninhabited area that nobody cared about when it flooded is today's subdivision, and the neighbor kid's big wheel is floating down the street.The top three deadliest floods in US history were hurricanes occurring in 1900, 1928, and 1893. Here is a look at weather losses over the past 28 years.
Storm losses aren't getting any worse either. Things aren't as bad as the doom and gloom news say they are.
It's clear that you are not aware that climate scientists already knew this long before you came along to try and act like this is something no one knows.
Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes.
I realize you're a "true believer," but you are incorrect.Proof that CO2 does not drive climate change is to be found during the Ordovician-Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods (approx 450 and 150 million years ago, respectively) when CO2 levels were greater than 4,000 ppm and about 2,000 ppm, respectively. If the IPCC AGW/ACC theory is correct, there should have been runaway greenhouse gas-induced global warming during those periods but instead there was glaciation.
Current CO2 level is slightly more than 400 ppm. Compare at will.
Winter snow extent is up slightly since the late 1960s.
Strong tornadoes are down sharply.
Hurricane frequency and intensity since 1900 are also lower.
Floods are a little tougher to judge, because what was yesterday's uninhabited area that nobody cared about when it flooded is today's subdivision, and the neighbor kid's big wheel is floating down the street.The top three deadliest floods in US history were hurricanes occurring in 1900, 1928, and 1893. Here is a look at weather losses over the past 28 years.
Storm losses aren't getting any worse either. Things aren't as bad as the doom and gloom news say they are.
Thanks. This is the kind of data that is helpful in determining the actual extent climate change affects human populations.
Looks like the world isn’t coming to an end after all.
LLNL's finding that humans are driving temperatures upward with fossil CO2 are scientifically proven with 99.99994% confidence. At that confidence level theories become facts. They did not rule out other natural climate change factors -- those factors were present when all of the measurements were taken.
They proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that manmade CO2 is the number one climate forcer today and it is swamping all of the natural signals.
This proves nothing. Just because Factor A in prehistoric times changed the climate that doesn't mean that Factor B can't be dominant today.
I believe in the scientific method. I'll be happy to become a climate denier when there's hundreds of studies in respected journals and over 90% of scientists say that climate change isn't real. Until then, I'm putting my money on the 99.99994% confidence level.
How did they rule out all of the other factors that affect climate change?
In July 2007, a survey of hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the past century noted an increase in the number of observed hurricanes, concluding "increasing cyclone numbers has lead to a distinct trend in the number of major hurricanes and one that is clearly associated with greenhouse warming" (Holland 2007).
History of the tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes (Category 3+) in the North Atlantic derived from the analysis of the National Hurricane Center (Global Warming Art).
I won't waste my time debunking the rest of your slight of hand post. I think we all clearly see the pattern that's emerging.
Cherry picking an article is not exactly debunking especially when it is factually that the hurricanes are down... It would make it pretty stupid actually... Hurricanes are down except this area over here and trying to imply to that you debunked it is stupid...
Cherry picking an article is not exactly debunking especially when it is factually that the hurricanes are down... It would make it pretty stupid actually... Hurricanes are down except this area over here and trying to imply to that you debunked it is stupid...
They have to falsify data to keep the hoax alive. Remember when IPCC hid the decline in attempt to "prove" their AGW hypothesis? And they can't answer basic rebuttal questions when asked because there are no answers to those questions that support anthropogenic climate change.
Direct quote from the Climategate emails: "Let's use Mike's [Mann] trick to hide the decline."
It's easy to see where you stand on the issue....A couple of labels you are forgetting....I have been compared to a doomsday cultist and alarmist and a few other things...You call climate science a religion? How many times have I heard that I wonder... The science is neither a religion, hoax, nor a conspiracy.... Science has the facts, deniers have nothing but opinions.
In any case what is your objection to calling things what they are?...A person that is for abortion IS pro-abortion. A person who is against vaccinations is an anti-vaxxer and a person who denies science a science denier.
If these things bother you so much perhaps you should not participate in controversial debates.
OK...in my humble opinion there is no real temperature record predating the satellite era, so we have no way of knowing how hot or cold it was 100 years ago.
Wrong, the science is settled that climate change is real except in the mind of deniers who are sadly victims of minds polluted with junk science and greed. They refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
"the science is settled that climate change is real except in the mind of deniers who are sadly victims of minds polluted with junk science and greed."
Post like this is why it is useless to try to have an open HONEST discussion on the subject.
And it is what the left DOES on most subjects, "If you DON'T agree with me, your a racist, sexist, homophobic, science "denier", etc.
They start out insulting you. They want YOU to accept what THEY think and no others opinion are acceptable.
"Wrong, the science is settled that climate change is real."
NO ONE denies that the climate changes ALL the time.
What IS denied is the "world is coming to an end and only man can stop it", garbage.
Scientist are like lawyers. If you put 100 in a room you will NEVER get ALL 100 to agree to anything.
Some of our bet lawyers become judges. MANY are overturned. Some even make it to the Supreme Court and SELDOM do we ever get a 9-0 ruling.
So I ask you, are YOU a certified Climatologist expert on the subject?
This man IS.
Let's see YOU challenge what HE says and PROVE IT using proven science techniques.
David R. Legates, Ph.D., is Professor of Geography and Climatology, former Director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware , and a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. This article reproduces, with minor modifications, his oral testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Congressional Western Caucus’s “Green New Deal” legislative forum Wednesday, February 27, 2019. Interesting read.
Forwarded without comment. I'm not qualified --- like 99%+ of the Earth's population, and 100% of politicians of all persuasions.
"by David Legates - Townhall.com March 2, 2019
Generally, I conclude most of my climate change presentations with the phrase, “It’s not about the climate; it never was.” Here, I would like to start with that statement. In this brief article, I will discuss why carbon dioxide isn’t the dangerous gas it is made out to be, why climate change is not an ‘existential’ threat to the planet, and why the Green New Deal is not a solution to climate change.
Let me begin with a series of questions.
Is our climate changing? The answer is clearly “YES” because climate has always changed. We often define ‘climate’ as ‘average weather’ and averages are not supposed to change. If they do, the cause must be unnatural. Treating the climate as a statistical average further implies that it should be static; in fact, the Earth’s climate is dynamic, variable, and ever-changing.
Is global warming real; or, more specifically, has the surface air temperature risen about 0.6°C (1.08°F) since the late 1800s? The answer also is “YES,” and on that there is little debate.
Do humans affect the Earth’s climate? Again, the answer is “YES” with little debate. We can point to the urban heat island—for example, the Washington metropolitan area is warmer than the surrounding countryside due to the urban city and this has been widely studied. Because of impervious surfaces and the increased water demand of urbanized areas, floods and drought frequencies and intensities also are affected.
Does carbon dioxide absorb energy? Yes, certainly. The Earth’s surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere—by about 30°C (54°F). But remember, the most important greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide; it is water vapor. Water cycles fast through the atmosphere, absorbing energy as it evaporates and releasing that energy as it condenses. The current amount of water in the global atmosphere will fall as precipitation in just the next ten days. Its mobility and efficiency in absorbing heat energy makes water fundamental in explaining the climate of the Earth.
If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, what will the effect be on global air temperature? This is where the debate begins.
We seek to determine something called the equilibrium climate sensitivity—that is, the eventual rise in air temperature due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Over the last twenty years, our estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity have decreased substantially, based on measurements of the climate system.
In the early 2000s, estimates were that a doubling of carbon dioxide would result in between a 3 and 6°C (5.4 and 10.8°F) warming. Since 2010, however, most estimates have placed the equilibrium climate sensitivity at less than 3°C (5.4°F), and over the last five years, several independent assessments have placed the sensitivity at about 1°C (1.8°F).
This implies that the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide has much less impact than the models suggest—their sensitivity has remained above 3°C (5.4°F) over the last two decades—which helps to explain why their estimates of warming are much higher.
How do we know that carbon dioxide is a minor player in climate change? Both theory and models tell us that the biggest effect of carbon dioxide on air temperatures should lie in the upper tropical troposphere. The troposphere is the layer of the atmosphere where all weather resides. Over the last forty years, the warming of this layer has been small, whereas the models indicate the warming should have been much greater. This further underscores that climate models grossly overstate the climate warming.
Moreover, theory also indicates that daily maximum air temperatures should rise if carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change. In fact, daily maxima have not changed substantially over the last eighty years, and before that, maximum air temperatures were much higher during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
Minimum daily air temperatures have increased, but that is associated with the warming of urban areas. Averaging these two extremes to get a daily average and then reporting that “this year is the warmest in recorded history” is highly misleading since most stations have a short record length and the warming is not due to carbon dioxide.
Will this warming necessarily lead to more climate extremes—floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea level rise, etc.? I can write in great detail showing the data and explaining why these events are not increasing in frequency or intensity and why, under a warmer world, the physics indicate that they should not. Changing land use and increased demand for water are more significant than carbon dioxide in changing the impact of climate on our lives. Coverage of extreme weather gives the false impression that violent weather is becoming more frequent and intense when the data say otherwise.
Is a warmer climate and more carbon dioxide a net benefit to life on the planet? The answer to this question is a resounding “YES.” More people die from exposure to cold than heat. A longer growing season is more beneficial to feeding a growing population. Further, since carbon dioxide is plant food, under higher carbon dioxide concentrations, virtually all plants grow faster and are more efficient in using water.
So, what is the climatic benefit of spending trillions of dollars and fundamentally changing our economy and way of life? The Green New Deal is not about ‘stabilizing’ the Earth’s climate. Carbon dioxide is a small player in climate change.
The United Nations has become the modern-day Robin Hood—creating wealth redistribution on a global scale. Industrialization has made developed nations ‘rich’, and by using fossil fuels, they are supposedly destroying our climate, for which the developed world must pay. Rich nations, therefore, must give much of their wealth to the poorer nations. Climate change has become the cause célèbre to move nations to action.
The Green New Deal is not about stopping climate change. Climate always changes and always will. The United States has cut back on greenhouse gas emissions by about 13% since 2005 to virtually no effect on the Earth’s climate. The net effect of reducing the United States ’ carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 would be negligible.
Even reduction by 100% would have little effect on the climate, but the policies proposed by the Green New Deal would make Karl Marx proud. But realize this; any draconian changes such as these would necessarily change our fundamental way of life. And that, not addressing the ills of climate change, is what the Green New Deal is all about."
The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors. More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.
You can talk about CO2 till the cows come home. Why are you ignoring all of the other drivers of climate change?
Your Gish Gallop is nothing more than a strawman argument, claiming CO2 is supposed to explain all climate change. Climate science by comparison claims that all physical laws apply at all times and climate responds to net forcing, not one single factor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
