Slashdot Mirror

Actually, no. His model makes no sense whatsoever. It's basically "Pacific ocean warm, Ogg happy". Meanwhile, the warming in the recent 20 years is now way over 95% significance threshold. The acceleration of the global warming rate is also now statistically significant.

Oldie, but goodie: https://skepticalscience.com/g...

Who remembers being told we are heading into a new ice age?

Sigh. In the 1970s, some people in the media claimed that there would be an ice age; scientists were in fact already talking about global warming https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm.

Why do we pay attention to this crap. It's just like a new fad diet.

Because this "crap" happens to be pretty accurate and pretty concerning. See e.g. https://xkcd.com/1732/, and look at changing sea ice levels http://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images/cryosphere/sotc/arctic-antarctic-anomaly-trend-1978-2017.png http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Obviously we are in uncharted territory, where we have CO2 LEADING temperature in our models.... Which, as the gemologist concludes, means our models are not necessarily wrong, but are also not provably right.

No model is provably right. However the behavior has a solid scientific explanation based on feedback loops and is not controversial. https://skepticalscience.com/c...

Prevailing winds bring in fresh, well mixed, air from the oceans and pushes the locally generated CO2 away, whether from cities or volcanoes away from the observatory. This link has more details, and included results from other measuring stations. https://skepticalscience.com/M...

So the actual scientists at skepticalscience are cranks, and some dude on a climate conspiracy blog is trustworthy? Off to a great start.

Which graph shows a slight negative slope? Certainly not the '70-'17 global ACE graph.

Beware of "skeptical" slope interpretation, and good luck with that Santa Ana house.

First link is denialist bunk. Not surprised, I mark Slashdot users as foes as a way to keep track of the denialists. Accumulated cyclone energy hasn't increased but it sure as hell hasn't decreased either:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Of course you had to cherry pick for your second argument. "Last year's Santa Ana fires in particular weren't made worse by global warming! Everything's fine, nothing to see here, pay no attention to all the other wildfires linked in the same article!"

True, but what that means is that other folks should always be looking for other theories that might better fit the data. Unfortunately, most of the folks on the other side seem to think that "unsettled" means "I can ignore this because it is inconvenient," which is not the same thing.

No, not at all. That's the strawman constructed and attacked. Go check out Watts Up With That, and you'll find 99.9% of the posters acknowledge some warming, but are skeptical that it is all man-made and it all comes from CO2. Rather, the appearance of trends as I linked tend to show a high likelihood that much of the warming is natural. So perhaps we need to re-think our priorities and budgetary allocations based upon data, rather than models that simply do not match the real world.

The problem is that their alternative explanations only fit the data over a very short period of time [skepticalscience.com], geologically speaking. These theories have been debunked repeatedly by trivial comparison with the actual data.

Actually, no. Not a single IPCC model accounts for the rise of temperature from 1890 to 1940, then the plunge from 1945 to 1975, let alone the general pause in the 2000s. However, there are models that correlate nicely with the past and also have predicted - more reliably than the IPCC models - the current 2000s. They come from geologists, though, not from climatologists. In fact, looking at past inter-glacial periods, we see a continual cyclic pattern of ever-increasing temperatures until the entire system "flips" into deep cooling. In other words - what we see today, is not unprecedented.

That said, there's a lot we don't know. It is possible (nay, almost certain) that we will eventually hit an equilibrium point at which more plants are growing, and the temperature change levels off.

When it levels off, that's when it starts falling. A few hundred million years says that's the way it happens. Typically glaciated over most of the Northern hemisphere, with occasional blips of warmth - like we have now.

The big unanswered questions are how many major cities will be underwater when it does, whether we will have enough arable land to feed the earth's population as temperatures and rain patterns shift, and whether the cost of reducing our greehouse gas emissions exceeds the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change over the long term. And *that* is where there is a lot of room for speculation, debate, etc.

Sea levels historically happened 4X faster than now, food production is skyrocketing, and there still isn't any real effect from increasing CO2.

Rather than sweat over something that has NOT been shown to be a cause of disaster (CO2 increases driving climate change), I fully agree with Bjorn Lomborg that we should look to spend our money on real, defined, understood problems.

Take a look at this image [wordpress.com]. If someone says "the science is settled", then they are clearly NOT being scientific.

True, but what that means is that other folks should always be looking for other theories that might better fit the data. Unfortunately, most of the folks on the other side seem to think that "unsettled" means "I can ignore this because it is inconvenient," which is not the same thing.

At best you may have an idea, but to call it settled - when we're seeing the EXACT SAME THING repeating itself over 60 year cycles, is the antithesis of science.

The problem is that their alternative explanations only fit the data over a very short period of time, geologically speaking. These theories have been debunked repeatedly by trivial comparison with the actual data. At some point, after you've heard dozens of variations of essentially the same thoroughly disproven theory, you have to start assuming that the people repeatedly suggesting them are not actually being skeptical, but rather are just trying to distract from actual science.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love it if all the global warming folks turned out to be wrong. But until there's a model that fits the data back through multiple ice ages and predicts that things will level out, we should still assume that they are right. Why? Because if they're wrong and we assume they are right, then we spend a lot of money making our air cleaner that we didn't have to spend, but we're otherwise no worse off, and if they're right and we assume they are wrong, then we doom our civilization. So if there's even a 50/50 chance that they are right, we have to assume that they are right (and the odds are much higher than that).

That said, there's a lot we don't know. It is possible (nay, almost certain) that we will eventually hit an equilibrium point at which more plants are growing, and the temperature change levels off. The big unanswered questions are how many major cities will be underwater when it does, whether we will have enough arable land to feed the earth's population as temperatures and rain patterns shift, and whether the cost of reducing our greehouse gas emissions exceeds the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change over the long term. And *that* is where there is a lot of room for speculation, debate, etc.

50 times higher? That's a mighty bold claim there. Have some information to back that up?

Yes. Of course he has. And you know it (no, I'm not going to get caught into a stupid argument whether it's precisely 47.2 times or 51.7 times faster). The question is why, given that you know that there are plenty of books, courses, video series etc that show exactly what you want to pretend is a new dicovery, why do you try to pretend they don't exist instead of, I don't know, just giving a link to the relevant skeptical science article?

Hmm, sounds like denialist hand waiving. You know, like the line that in the 70's all the scientists were worried about a new ice age when that's total crap.

The Venus scenario would require more carbon than we have to burn, forminb an atmosphere that is as thick as our ocean depths: https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Wrong: Direct rebuttal to your article.

Of these only natural gas is base load

You are stuck in the past, please join us in the present, as we work towards the future.

This is misleading. CO2 IR absorption _alone_ does not explain global warming. But it doesn't need to.

CO2 forcing the water vapor concentration increase most certainly does explain the current warming with statistically significant precision. Here's a nice summary: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

No they haven't. In the last couple of thousand years there's been a slight drop in sea levels. Until about 1900 that is when sea level rise has been consistent and accelerating. Here's an interesting article on SLR over the past several thousand years.

Sea level isn't level-Ocean siphoning, levered continents and the Holocene sea level highstand

I love your post. Zero facts, zero logic, but somehow I'm the "moronic denier". Since you clearly failed debate (or never had to take it), here's a tip: when a side reverts to name calling and logical fallacies (Ad hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and appeal to majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), that in it'self is a flat out lie ( https://www.skepticalscience.c... ) they typically have a very weak position.

And no, the AGW scientists have been caught a number of times falsely manipulating the numbers (FACT)
https://science.house.gov/news...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
http://www.foxnews.com/science...

The AGW "scientists" mathematical models have been wildly inaccurate: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... (how you can look at that graph and not doubt the quality of their predictions is beyond me) but still you want to treat them like a hard science... Good luck with that.

I have facts and evidence, you have blind faith in "scientists" who are out to make a buck vis a vi federal grant money. Get back to me when you have more facts and less name calling...

As you said, thanks for playing.

has slight variations that correspond quite well with the variations in CO2 emissions

Care to crunch the data on that? Doesn't look nearly as close a fit as I think you're imagining:

https://static.skepticalscienc...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Here's one that seems to have them side by side:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

Now, I'd love to see the data, but there seems to be nearly zero correlation, even though the slopes are similar. I can't look at that graph and see any obvious tight correlation. You can see the rate of increase (rather than the total c02 in the atmosphere) being used as a metric - and there's a bunch of variation in that rate of increase that doesn't look at all like human emissions.

As far as temperature goes there is natural variability and some human factors that produce noise in the temperature record that is much greater than the year to year increase in forcing.

Which begs the question - maybe natural variability produces more noise than any proposed human effect :)

Read some of the questions posed by the community which the self-proclaimed "pro-science" community has dubbed "anti-science."

Why do insist on telling lies? None of the questions you listed are deemed "anti-science" by anyone with any credibility.

They want to know to what extent climate change is influenced by man's activities and to what extent it is a natural phenomenon. Is it 90/10? 50/50?

100/0, except in a few specific years where strong El Ninos have a temporary warming effect that exceeds the natural cooling trend.

We don't know the answer.

You may not, we do. That's one of the settled questions.

They want to know what, short of abandoning society, we can do to keep earth safe and hospitable.

No one serious is recommending that we abandon society. There are so many things we can do that listing them all here would be prohibitively long, but the single biggest thing is reducing consumption of the fossil fuels that release CO2 (and other green house gases) into the atmosphere.

What would be the measurable effects of our mitigating activities, what would be the cost, etc.

That depends on which mitigating activities, but in total the cost of mitigation is estimated to be at about 1-2% of GDP, which for reference is about the same as it costs the world's cities to maintain their sewer infrastructure.

They want to know what we can expect in terms of weather change and when such changes will be quantifiable. I've actually seen some lively discussion on this last point, and scientists in this community agree we don't have a statistically significant data set re: extreme weather and have no basis for proving/disproving AGW/extreme weather hypotheses at this time.

Such changes are already quantifiable, there was an article about that just a few weeks ago. Weather events are effectively random, however, climate change influences the frequency, distribution, and severity of those events.

I guess they're "science deniers," right??? :D They should quit asking questions so we can "get some work done" right???

I did say stupid questions. Of course, several of your questions are pretty dumb including the "how much of the warming trend is natural" question because it's been answered so many times before, and the "what can we do other than abandon society" question, because you are implying that's what other people want you to do, and it's likely you're doing it so you can feel validated in doing nothing because you imagine other people's solutions are inherently impractical. As an example of why people grow tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and over, I've personally answered the how much of the warming is natural question on Slashdot over 20 times.

Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age?

It hasn't, if you look at figure 4.31 on this page. You notice a rapid rise in sea level after the end of the glacial period, followed by a leveling off of sea level rise. Natural forces would eventually turn that into a slow sea level fall as we descended into the next glacial period. Instead sea level rise is now accelerating due to anthropogenic factors.

I agree the earth is warming, it has been warming since the last Ice Age.

No, it hasn't "been warming since the last Ice Age", global temperatures have, in fact been declining since they peaked about 7,500 years ago.

We don't really know if the rate of warming is unusual, but judging by HADCET, it would appear that the period since 1800 has seen temperature rises over decades that are not unusual.

Yes we do, anthropogenic forces have inverted the direction of the climate change (see previous point), and I doubt any actual climate experts would agree with your amateur assessment of the HADCET data.

As to CO2, yes the fossil fuel emissions do hang around in the atmosphere, and so CO2 has increased. But, the greenhouse effect is due to CO2 is small, and easily overwhelmed by changes in water vapor and albedo.

I'm sorry, but that's also wrong. Water vapour concentrations are determined by air temperature so increases in CO2 concentration cause a feedback effect that also increases the greenhouse effect of water vapour by increasing air temperature and therefore also increasing the amount of water vapour as well. While Albedo may have the potential be larger than CO2 forcings, current measurements do not show a significant change in the earth's albedo.

The albedo effect is the dominant part of the equation, and none of their computer models account for changes in albedo in the future.

I sincerely doubt the veracity of a claim that none of the computer models account for changes in albedo. Can you prove this claim? Because this 2014 paper claims to be examining the accuracy of surface albedo feedback in 11 different models. It seems it would be difficult to do that if none of the models accounted for surface albedo feedbacks.

It kind of seems like everything you think you know about the climate and climate modelling is wrong. You might want to go back and check your sources, if they are telling you things that aren't true, you need to find better sources.

People who believe your tripe should be bothered to comb this site.

"Literal trillions of dollars as calculated by whom? You magnify the "subsidies" of fossil fuels while handwaving over alternatives."

If you're going to persistently refuse to understand the subject whilst insisting you're right regardless I'm going to stop wasting my time. As I said - a simple Google search will find you hundreds of results, so to answer your question in terms of whom, literally every journalist and scientist that's ever objectively studied the subject. As Google is apparently way too confusing for you though, I'll make it easier:

The IMF: https://www.wsj.com/articles/i...

National Academy of Sciences: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...

Side note on the above: "The damages are caused almost equally by coal and oil, according to the study, which was ordered by Congress." - you argue oil is better than coal, it's really not, presumably when you say you like fossil fuels what you really mean is that you're an oil man if you believe what you said.

Forbes Journalist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

MIT Economics Prof: http://news.mit.edu/2016/carbo...

World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

Union of Concerns Scientists: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-e...

Skeptical Science: https://skepticalscience.com/p...

Cambridge University: https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/bus...

How long do you want me to keep going before you decide to stop being in denial? You can't pretend this is bias or partisanism - as I've said all along, there's a reason why left and right come to the same conclusions when they study this. You cannot pretend the likes of Forbes to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the US government to the IMF, and Cambridge University to the World Nuclear Association are somehow bedfellows that all sit on the exact same end of the political spectrum - they don't, that's nonsense - they all agree because it's true, and if you disagree it's because you're being irrational.

I did as you said regarding earthquakes from dams, and yes, whilst I'm willing to admit I hadn't appreciated quite how harmful some of them had been, I think you still fundamentally fail to understand the differences in scale - we're talking less than a million deaths from them across all time, and yet fossil fuels kill tens (possibly squeezing into hundreds) of millions globally not just in one off incidents, but on an ongoing basis every year. There's still not even a remotely equivalent comparison - the externalities of fossil fuels are still many orders of magnitude higher on healthcare alone - even if you reject the global warming argument, and ignore the geopolitical strife caused by fighting over fossil fuels, you're still seeing orders of magnitude more externalities (and deaths) on fossil fuels based just on the topic of healthcare and nothing more alone. When you factor in the other realities - war, climate change and so forth, it's like comparing a spec of sand to the size of the plant and saying the two are equivalent.

I've Google'd the shit out of trying to find any kind of study showing that other fuels externalities are equivalent to fossil fuels. Guess what? Nothing, whilst it's consistently poss

I'm not talking about tax breaks, you've failed to understand the problem. In fact, had you Google'd as I'd suggest you'd have seen why you have no idea what you're talking about.

The defacto subsidies in question are the fact that there are effects of the actions of fossil fuel companies that they do not pay for - if a nuclear power company causes cancer because of a radiation leak then they've been consistently held liable for the costs of healthcare stemming from that. Whilst some fossil fuel companies have been held liable for some incidents - i.e. BP for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, there is constant release of harmful pollutants such as way above natural levels of mercury released in both extraction of the fossil fuels by companies like BP and in burning of them for energy by power companies - these too cause cancer but the companies do not pay those costs.

Instead, they rely on useful idiots like you to blindly pay far higher costs for healthcare insurance (or tax if you're in a socialised healthcare country) than you would otherwise have to if they were picking up the tab - so if they cause someone cancer through excessive pollutant release, then unlike the case where the nuclear power companies consistently pick up the tab, instead you pick up the tab for that person's cancer through higher healthcare costs even though they were at fault for causing it.

So people like YOU are subsidising them for paying for the effects of their actions, and in turn they can offer their product cheaper than is otherwise warranted, hence fossil fuels are only competitive because of that defacto subsidy. Again, read up on fossil fuel externalities before commenting further if you want to comment and actually understand what you're talking about. It literally has nothing to do with tax breaks, I don't know why you'd even assume that unless you're just jumping to conclusions and posting without understanding the problem, which I presume is the case.

Pick a different more right wing source if you prefer, or find a more left wing source if that's your flavour, but in case you can't actually be bothered to Google I'm going to offer up this one, because it has a nice simple bullet pointed list highlighting the things that people like you subsidise for fossil fuel industries:

https://skepticalscience.com/p...

Again, this is not a partisan issue, it's not about tax breaks, I'm making the point that you and everyone else in this thread are subsidising fossil fuels in real terms to keep their price artificially low. The only way you avoid it is if you don't pay taxes, don't pay healthcare and so on and so forth.

No original data were presented, from what I could see.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

97% was debunked.

Nope.

We have about 50 years of good satellite data which shows warming, vs 150 years of ground based samples that don't.

The ground based samples are better quality. A satellite doesn't measure surface air temperature. Instead it measure the IR radiation coming from the surface, mixed in with the radiation coming from the entire column of air, and then has to perform complicated modelling to figure out what portion of the IR actually comes from the bottom layer.

And the 150 years of ground data clearly show warming. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...

It doesn't help that East Anglia climatologists were caught cherry picking

They weren't. Here's a nice article explaining the temperature adjustments: https://skepticalscience.com/u...

Even without the adjustments, there's a very clear warming. A team of scientists from Berkeley had doubts about these adjustments, so they started with the raw data, and redid everything themselves. They ended up with almost the same graph.

Here's some more info: http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...

Clearly, I'd better keep this very, very simple.

Question 1: Why do you put ice in a drink?

Question 2: What happens to the ice?

Question 3: What happens to the drink?

Question 4: If you put your drink under a heat lamp, will the ice melt slower or faster?

No, I won't be providing anything more comprehensive. You can find that out here: https://skepticalscience.com/

And by the way, your claim that " 'climate change' was originally popularly sold as 'you are all going to fry like eggs if you don't join our political positions! "' is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Here's an article explaining why your "climate models are inaccurate" assertion is wrong.

Here's a paper for CMIP5 and here's the Chapter of the AR5 assessment on climate-model agreement.

I don't expect you'll actually read them, though.

You aren't citing any

Yes, I cited the IPCC report. The one that made predictions which are in the middle of being tested now.

No I didn't provide a link. I figured anyone debating climate change would have the very basics in place. I find it astonishing that you believe you're informed on the topic and are unaware of the first IPCC report!

That's incredible!

Here you go:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

And, of course, even if some such predictions did come true, it is not proof.

Duck and weave duck and weave. We both know I made no such claim so we both now know you are an exceptinally dishonest person. You claimed the science was not falsifiable. the IPCC report made testable predictions which is pretty much the definition of falsifiable.

And the predictions came true.

Actually, this time around I didn't have to make such a claim of my own. I simply cited claims made by others.

Yes, that's you making a claim and backing it up with citations. Either that or you were osting irrelevant links to the thread for the purpose of making nothing but pointless noise.

Since you say you are making no claim we can infer that your were being utterly pointelss. thankyou for this time being honest enough to admit to it!

It being warm does not prove the need to ban incandescent light bulbs either.

I must be winning: I point out that you're being stupid and the best you can manage is point out to me what someone else did!

I think, I'm done here.

No, my man, a denialists work is never done.

That's a really interesting point that the climate science community has discuss thoroughly over the past 30 years and understands. If you're interested in understanding why this lag has happened in the past, check out this:

https://skepticalscience.com/c...

That short story is that yes, CO2 has lagged behind temperature over the past several hundred thousand years because CO2 hasn't driven those temperature changes - those changes happened due to orbital variations. In fact, during those periods CO2 was released from the oceans due to the warming (hence the lag), and that release *amplified* the warming as a result.

So that very same historical record that you refer to provides evidence that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere can increase temperatures.

The fact that historical changes in temperature have not been initiated by CO2 increases does not speak to whether our current unprecedented rise in CO2 will initiate temperature rise. The fact that historical increases in CO2 have amplified temperature rises *does* speak to whether increases in CO2 cause temperature rises (they do).

Real science doesn't label critics as “deniers”. Politics in the name of science does that.

Real scientists label things as what they are. In this case there are two theories a) the critics of global warming are "denialists" and b) the critics of global warming are "skeptics". There's an experimental test we can do. We take those that are critical and we provide them with experimental evidence and data. We allow them to make predictions and then we test those predictions. What happens in most cases is that they go through a series of different denials and change their theories: there is no warming oh.. there is warming however it will go away soon oh .. it didn't go awayhowever it isn't caused by CO2oh .. it is caused by CO2 but it isn't caused by humans and it's natural oh.. and this goes on and on.

In a few cases there are actual skeptics and when you do this they end up admitting that they were wrong which is how science works. These people were skeptics and were valid critics and do end up changing their mind when they see and understand the overwhelming evidence.

In your case, I make the prediction that even when I point you to sufficient evidence to be clear you will not take it into account and change your views. That would make you a "denialist" because that is what scientific testing shows you are, not because I'm labelling you.

The computer models we have are inaccurate, as has been demonstrated in multiple peer reviewed papers.

The computer models we have are models. All models are "inaccurate". The only question is how much. Our climate models which predict an increase in the temperature of the earth as humans increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere have been shown to be some of the least inaccurate available. They do have problems and it seems that the warming effect is actually stronger than predicted by those models, however they are the best we have at this point.

Here's a good article explaining a bit more about climate models and here's an article about the surprising accuracy of those models.

The computer models we have are inaccurate, as has been demonstrated in multiple peer reviewed papers.

The computer models we have are models. All models are "inaccurate". The only question is how much. Our climate models which predict an increase in the temperature of the earth as humans increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere have been shown to be some of the least inaccurate available. They do have problems and it seems that the warming effect is actually stronger than predicted by those models, however they are the best we have at this point.

Here's a good article explaining a bit more about climate models and here's an article about the surprising accuracy of those models.

The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.

It sure reads like you don't understand the difference between climate change and the weather. The weather is going to become increasingly volatile which means you are going to get more extreme weather patterns (larger range of temperature) thus altering the climate. Ergo climate change. However, the overall temperature of the planet is still going to rise. Ergo global warming.

Please educate yourself on this very important topic.

The entire Earth is nothing but a giant CO2 recycler, given time.

If we had millions of years, sure. However, if we put out 0 CO2 emissions starting today, the trees wouldn't be able to cope with it giving the next 1000 years.

You do realize that historically the Earth has had different levels of CO2, right, including some higher?

The Earth hasn't had higher levels of CO2 than we have now for millions of years. If you are talking about the cycle of the ice-ages, well, you need an ice-age for that to happen.

If it's not possible for the Earth to re-absorb it, what happened in your mind, hmm?? Aliens, obv.

Apparently you are unaware of the evolution that occurred. Microbes learned a trick (via mutation) and thus become able to consume dead trees, producing CO2 in the process. If not for this, trees would still end up as coal after enough time.

I'll let you have the last response since you are clearly of a one-track mind about this, having been already told what to think and not really willing to divert from your faith on the matter.

What I've told you is based on science. A little education on climate change myths will do you a lot of good.

Thank you for proving my point by linking to a long discredited story, which you cling to because it supports your political opinions.

If you weren't an anti-science political hack, you wouldn't be trying to peddle those lies here.

It's kind of disingenuous to require scientific precision from journalism. That's not its role. It's for promoting awareness. The actual arguments and data have been around a while.

Well people disagree about that

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...

If you are serious about learning more, I highly recommend http://skepticalscience.com/

As a friend of mine, who was an actual peer reviewed published scientist, observed - '"Meta Studies are not science". I.e. as soon as you get someone doing a metastudy they can use ad hoc criteria to decide which paper they include and which one they exclude. In the case of "Skeptical Science" John Cook is not a scientist, he's an environmental activist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So his summaries of science include a big chunk of editorial bias. He's free to do that, but so is Matt Ridley. And both have the same credibility.

But what about the other sources that present evidence, that have been around for a decade? If you are serious about learning about climate change, take a look at http://skepticalscience.com/ where they discuss other possible sources of the changes and mitigating factors. (spoiler so as not to be misleading: only CO2 seems to be effective at explaining the trend)

All I'm saying is the evidence and arguments are out there. Please look, instead of requiring each new news article on the subject to be everything.

It's kind of disingenuous to require scientific precision from journalism. That's not its role. It's for promoting awareness. The actual arguments and data have been around a while. If you are serious about learning more, I highly recommend http://skepticalscience.com/

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

stop referencing that shit pile of excuses for failed science.

Your post was made possible by a "shit-pile" of innovations that were discovered by the science you dismiss. You're welcome.

Failed science is replaced by successful science. That's how science works.

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Good lord, are you being intentionally daft? Claimed by anyone who uses the IPCC models/papers as justification for anything!

There are no IPCC models.

There are plenty of people who say that the IPCC papers justify taking a deliberate, but relatively gentle approach to tackling climate change: you say these people are wrong? So we should instead move to immediately shut down all our industry and cripple our economies because the impacts of increasing CO2 on our climate is impossible to model?

The models simply do not match observed reality - being 2 to 4 times TOO HIGH, over a short timeframe.

Incorrect. Spencers argument is that his model sort of aligns to reality over a short time, so it must be correct. Other scientists took his model and ran it over longer periods, and it failed hopelessly. Did the climate mechanisms suddenly change in the year 2001? Or did Spencer build a model that simply reproduces what he already had in terms of observations over an absurdly short timeframe and has no predictive ability at all?

Look at the data I've linked many times!

Did you look at it yourself?

You just do not want to admit that the models don't work.

You contradict Spencer, who says that his model does. Who should I believe?

What you're thinking of is electrolysis of water, and thats rare as it that takes a lot of energy. Even the gasification of other carbon based biomas is used more. Basicly carbon-neutral hydrogen production is little more than a myth that can not continued to go ignored. It will take a lot to beat current battiery technology. That's all this hydrogen fuel really is. An inefficient battiery that less inefficent by using the same hydrocarbons we are trying to avoid using.

Currently, ICE releases small amounts of vapor alogn with it's power output. With fuel FCEV, it will produce a lot more vapor, but yes the local atmasphere will balance itse'f out, meaning it will rain more. https://www.skepticalscience.c... . But that's in places that have more normal rainfaall paterns. Places with very little humidity will(and are ) slowly becomign more humid. Things get messy here as while the water holds more energy, the evaporation lowers it. I will say it will cause climate change.

Nature produces and absorbs more than 10x the CO2 than that, even climate alarmists admit that: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
The extra CO2 we produce is allowing plants to grow faster, causing the earth to become greener over the past 30 years (since we have sattelites measuring it): https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/1222...
These are facts the establishment won't tell you because it disrupts their agenda for more government power. When you're only and always hearing about the negatives of one thing (fossil fuels) and only and always hearing about the positives of another (green energy), you're probably being bamboozled.

This. I have references. Omg they were so hard to find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://skepticalscience.com/i...

You mean this Roy Spencer

https://skepticalscience.com/R...

right ?

What is it with the slashdot crowd and the "lone wolf" saviour thing ? Is it just the usual right wing astro turfing, or do they really think that it's normal for lots and lots of scientists to be wrong AND lie about it, but that one person is the real purveyor of truth.

Roy Spencer is right but 95% of the climate scientists on the planet are wrong ? really?

We're dumping GIGA tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, a heat trapping gas, and it's doing NOTHING ?

oh wait, I forgot it's all natural variability. oh that's awesome, i'm glad you thought of that. before Roy Spencer came along nobody thought to check to see if maybe this warming is due to natural variability. wow- what a brilliant insight !

Well, all of those lying climate scientists on their big fat research paychecks showed that it isn't natural variability, but THEY'RE ALL WRONG. and they're liars. and Al Gore is fat.

There will always be alarmists. There may be some specific statements made by Al Gore that were exaggerated (I don't know, and you haven't provided any examples, but I would say it's at least broadly correct). But to claim that because there have been some unrealistic dire predictions, all dire predictions are false, is so obviously fallacious that I'm surprised deniers even bother to make that claim at all.

It's also to be noted that Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and of course his work was written to be as exciting as possible, because that's simply the only way to get the attention of the masses. If you want more accuracy, try the IPCC reports - if you can find any genuine inaccuracies in those, that aren't corrected in later editions, then I'll start listening to you.

I did a search regarding testability and found this from pro-AGW people who acknowledge that the theory is too complex and it cannot be falsified as a whole, only its individual components can. https://skepticalscience.com/a... (Pasting the best part below.)

This is fair, but I think it also shows that it is a natural block from people accepting it in order to make radically different decisions in life -- eat vegan, have fewer children -- based on such theory. Unless climate science can demonstrate almost prophetic powers like physics can, it will remain a partisan issue.

Post from the link:

falsifiability is a strange concept of limited use in science, despite its popularity. The reason is that when we test any hypothesis, we must make background assumptions both about other conditions, and about how our instruments work. These background assumptions then form auxilliary hypotheses which are tested alongside the hypothesis we actually desire to test. As a consequence, if our test gives a negative result, we do not falsify any individual hypothesis (including the one we wanted to test). Rather we falsify the conjunction of the hypotheses. We show that not all of them can be true together. This is known as the Duhem-Quine Thesis, after its two independent "discoverers".

To illustrate this, consider Dikran Marsupial's test of "global climate change theories" from 2 above. He claims that a centenial negative trend in temperatures would falsify the theory. Of course, if that centenial trend coincided with a 50% reduction of solar physics, the theory would not be falsified. Dikran is quite aware of this, and covered himself with the auxilliary clause that the trend occured "in the absence of any other change in the forcings that could explain it".

In very simple theories, we can radically reduce the number of auxilliary hypotheses making the particular hypothesis of interest more amenable to falsification in a "crucial test". We can also vary our experimental methods so that we are testing the theory with different auxilliary hypotheses. Thus, for very simple hypotheses, we can reduce the impact of the Duhem-Quine Thesis, but we can never entirely avoid it.

Because AGW is a complex theory with many auxilliary hypotheses, it is difficult to develop "crucial tests", ie, any individual test that will show it to be false. In fact, in the very short term it is impossible. What we can do is develop "crucial tests" for important elements of the theory, but not for the whole theory at once. We can also measure relative likilihood with respect to competing theories. Doing so, we can show that AGW easilly is a superior theory to its competitors. But we cannot pick a single experiment to falsify the theory, so you will not find much discussion of falsification with respect to AGW.

When you do, it is often for critics of AGW who take a farcically simplistic view of falsification to declare that "AGW is falsified". Spencer and Christy played this game for a while, declaring the UAH satellite temperature index falsified AGW. Then (on several occasions) they were embarrassed when it was shown that their auxilliary hypothesis that they had eliminated all significant errors from their temperature record was what was false, and that UAH tends to confirm rather than falsify AGW.

Lucia Liljegren has played a similar game, several times declaring that the recent temperature record falsifies IPCC predictions. She has neglected, however, the IPCC auxilliary hypothesis of neutral ENSO conditions*. She has merely falsified the conjunction of hypotheses that (CO2 forcing is increasing & climate sensitivity is in the IPCC range & ENSO fluctuations do not effect global temperatures & ....). As her third, tacit, auxilliary hypothesis is known to be false, her results are massively uninteresting. (She also uses a very simplistic definition of falsification in which events with a 1in 20 probabi

Okay and what about all the climate models that are "called science" that were very wrong?

Okay and which ones would those be. The climate cooling myth doesn't count for obvious reasons.

https://skepticalscience.com/i...

His point is that there are many competing models and almost none of them were correct.

His point is an uncited tautology.

We only know this one was correct in hindsight.

"Scientists pull random theories out of their butts and decades later pick and choose the ones that were correct" isn't how science actually works.

And Popular Mechanics had articles on how everyone would have their own personal airplanes. Whoop de fucking do.

https://skepticalscience.com/i...

Or he did hear that being taught, just like I did in the late 70s and heard the exact same thing being taught - even in the Weekly Reader (those under 40 or so probably have no clue what that even is).

You weren't taught any such thing unless your teacher was a quack making shit up.

https://skepticalscience.com/i...