Slashdot Mirror

This will help you more, sophist.

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

If you read any of the literature, you'd know that this is the reference-- the Manabe and Wetherald paper was the first to fully model the co-effect of carbon dioxide and humidity in a convective atmosphere, and is the one pretty much everybody references.

Here https://www.carbonbrief.org/pr... for example, or here https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Manabe was the grandfather of global circulation models-- pretty much all the models that exist today can be traced back to his work. This wasn't a "random" paper-- this was the paper.

Perhaps you should have taken note of the scientists instead of the media regarding the "cooling" - here is a good place to start https://skepticalscience.com/i...
A lot of times where things do not happened as predicted are due to the predictions being addressed with possible solutions.

Because it isn't fair. It will transfer at least $100B from our economy to third world economies for no other reason than it can. Once you look it this treaty is nothing more than an attempt to redistribute wealth from western nations to non western nations. All under the disguise of helping the climate.

The West of your country has been burning up with forest fires. The East has been flooded. Tornadoes are increasing in the centre. All of this is linked to global warming and will get worse because of it. This is a problem for everyone, including you. In other places in the world the problem is worse.

America has released well over 200GT of emissions, more than any other country and, compared to your nearest rival (china) you released almost 1000T per person where they are well below 100T. This is a problem caused by you. Only the United Arab Emirates are worse and then, only in the sense of emissions per person. They have committed to helping in the Paris process.

The rest of the world is becoming energy dependent and moving up in lifestyle. They can either do this the cheapest way - burning wood and coal in local stoves, or they move directly to electricity if someone helps them. Because you did this transformation before, your economy is now worth over 18 Trillion dollars per year. Even if $100B was to come out in one year (which it won't have to) and was simply going to be a cost (which it won't be because the countries will then be able to trade with you and buy your products) and if you had to do this alone (which you won't because the EU has committed to being much more generous than the USA) then this is a problem that you could easily solve and which, having benefited from using everyone's atmosphere for your development, you have a moral duty to solve.

It is entirely fair reasonable and easy for the USA to pull its weight here.

Some further information.

• countries by CO2 emissions - includes 1970-2013 cumulative data
• general information about history and causes of global warming
• US economy general
• cumulative emissions data 1850-2002

https://skepticalscience.com/r...

FYI The baseload power argument has been wrong for over a decade now. Those who still make it are either horribly out of touch, shills, or just in denial.

Based on the other things you've said, you might belong in the "shill" bin.
=Smidge=

Of course he was modded troll, because he is lying. Yes, there is some data homogenization to account for differences in the accuracy of historical data. You can question that practice if you wish, but the un-homogenized data actually shows a larger warming trend. https://www.skepticalscience.c...

This tired old nonsense again?

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

Bring a fresh argument next time. If the climate conspiracy blogs can cook up any.

Calling it Virtue Signalling seems accurate though when taken with the 1st post. AC asked, "If solar and wind are as cheap without subsidies as recent stories claim, why do countries need to set targets like this?" Which would lead to the pointlessness of the law, so with the definition from Wikipedia "Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group." it start to sound like this is just political pandering, and with the last part of the definition from Wikipedia "the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty, or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action." then we can easily see that if the question by AC is grounded in fact than it is Virtue Signalling. If on the other hand we can say that none of this is cheaper, and the laws are necessary to improve the environment, but even this simple site https://www.skepticalscience.c... says that CO2 turnover is at least 500 years if we stopped 100% now. More likely 1000 years, so it seems more like it is Virtue Signalling since it would be pointless. Now, if the goal was to improve air quality for people and animals in/near cities and power plants I could easily get behind this. http://www.oecd.org/env/the-co...

Did you read the things linked to? Because I read yours.

The first thing you linked concerns minor short-term discrepancies which are irrelevant in the larger term; compare that 1993-2012 period to 1984-1998, which runs the other direction. Here is a response to the second. The third site didn't load without trusting them to run code on my PC and your graph was given without context so I ignored your other "sources".

Thanks for making my point.

You are turning up on a forum where quite a few of the people present have scientific education and expecting to get statements like "expect a panic to sound as good" past us as if we were a bunch of daily mail readers incapable of counting our own socks. Even if we aren't climate scientists able to analyse the details of specific models, we are all perfectly capable of reading through the evidence and history of claims and seeing that you belong to a group of people who are systematically lying; Talking about "pauses" and "reversal" where there was none; misrepresenting what other people were saying and selecting evidence.

When you turn up as first post and think that we can't see that you are a dupe of big oil you are look like a "fucking idiot". If you really believe what you say (and there are some here who do) then the term using the term "retarded faggot" is an insult to both the educationally "retarded" and to bundles of wood who would appear to have more credibility in the scientific space than you ever will.

Possibly we should be arguing with you point by point, showing how you are wrong because things called "ships" existed before there were aircraft. However, next you would just select a different sock puppet and start to talk about how "hurricanes are good really because they generate more wind energy" or something equally stupid. Occasionally, just occasionally it's best to just call you out for what you are. An (probably incapable of fucking) idiot.

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

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...

You are the only one to invoke it, there is not a single word about human causes in TFA and it's entirely irrelevant in its context.

The effect of global warming is visible for pretty much anyone to see. Probably much worse than the scientists say since they only talk about things that they have hard proven evidence for - "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than the "balance of probabilities" standard you would use to decide something in a civil court or a sane person would use to decide whether to take action. The only possible way the global warming denialists can persuade people to ignore that reality is for them to challenge everything which even suggests that the weather is getting more unstable. For you this is irrelevant. For him this is another fact; a part of reality; a challenge to his lie. There are massive amounts of clear scientific evidence showing that humans are causing global warming. He knows it. Anyone educated who just reads up on this in detail knows it. Anyone who simply has a basic scientific understanding and an attention span more than five years to remember the denialists previous predictions knows it.

AGW is a theory of climate change. Theories of climate change were a response to the "static climate" theories (read: assumptions based on Christian theology). It was widely believed that humans could not affect the planet, but we kept finding evidence of ice ages, and so there were a number of theories of climate change that arose in the 19th Century. Just before the dawn of the 20th Century, a guy named Arrhenius proposed a CO2-induced theory of climate change, which after being considered debunked for five decades has gained near-universal support.

Deniers would like to believe that there is some naming conspiracy, which is at this point probably nothing more than a litmus test to see if you'll believe other kookery. Someone failed to inform the IPCC that they had the wrong acronym, I guess? But the conspiracy also assumes that you're not smart enough to figure out that, to the degree that there has been any change in terminology, it's because of Frank Luntz and George W. Bush. In actual fact, the terms "climate change" and "AGW" are closely related but distinct terms, which only tend to be synonymous when discussing current climate issues. I can't think why exactly this conspiracy theory would be meaningful if true, but you should probably avoid the argument unless the goal is to look incredibly stupid.

Absolutely wrong, where did you learn this nonsense? We aren't crawling up anything that could appear to be a natural spike, we've made our own spike in what should be a trough:

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

The earth should be cooling now, if there were no anthropogenic climate effects.

Here you go. Took a couple minutes searching:

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

http://www.easterbrook.ca/stev...

Will you stop lying now?

And my point is, so what? That's a single graph, multiple recent data sources show rising temperatures, and multiple other proxy studies show historically temperatures were lower.

Even if that single study were completely debunked, there's plenty of other sources that show the same trend.

Um, no.

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

So what is the relation between El Nino and climate changes already?

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

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

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

So, Climate scientists think El Nino reduces hurricane probability and intensity. Some predict AGW will double El Nino frequency. Some predict Hurricane frequency and intensity will increase due to AGW.

Nice to see its all figured out.

So what is the relation between El Nino and climate changes already?

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

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

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

First it was Global Cooling until that fell flat on it's face.

What fell flat on its face is your knowledge of history. In fact, scientists did not predict cooling: that was only the media.

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Let me suggest that you crawl back under your bridge.

It sounds like the permafrost melting thing is an unstable equilibrium: the more it melts, the more carbon and methane goes into the atmosphere, the warmer it gets, and the more it melts.

So, here's my question: if we are sitting on an unstable equilibrium like that, why hasn't there been runaway carbon dioxide warming in the past?

Why doesn't any positive feedback react that way? If I have a single beer that triggers a positive feedback loop where I want another beer, but it doesn't end up with me dead of alcohol poisoning, it ends up with me drunk and deciding I've had enough. An avalanche is another positive feedback, a single snowball might not do anything, but once there's enough sliding snow it starts to trigger more snow to slide.

But the result isn't snow sliding to the centre of the earth, the positive feedback of sliding snow gives out as the snow reaches the bottom of the mountain.

Global warming feedbacks aren't fundamentally different, positive feedbacks diminish in effectiveness as the system moves in their direction. The positive feedbacks of global warming are like two meta-stable states of the snow, top of the mountain and bottom of the mountain. Just like we went from an ice age to a modern climate, we're on our way from a modern climate to global warming. And that climate won't be stable either, eventually something else will happen, another set of positive feedback will kick in, and the earth will move to yet another equilibrium.

It would only take a degree or two of variation to trigger the runaway event, but that's never happened due to variations in sun activity?

I don't know how typical it is for the sun to cause a crazy hot year, but one really hot year doesn't do much. The permafrost doesn't melt in one hot year, it takes a lot of hot years in a row.

Every morning I read Breitbart first, then MSM (via Google News). Breitbart to find out what happened, and MSM to find out why it was Trump's fault.

I read a lot of MSM and Trump's administration has gone more or less how I expected, as has the climate over the past couple decades.

Somehow I suspect you end up being either surprised the state of reality a lot more often than I do.

I don't trust any scientists. I have a PhD in applied science, and am fully capable of reviewing the data myself, which I have been doing for over 20 years. I believe and trust hard facts, and have a very low opinion of climate "scientists" who have been shilling for grant money and wildly wrong for the last 20 plus years with their computer models and predictions, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... AGW "scientists" have been caught repeatedly faking numbers, http://www.washingtontimes.com... and even they will agree that the science is far from settled (the only people arguing that the science is settled and all scientists believe in AGW are Bill Nye and the idiot politicians and those who worship at their feet). Further, your assertion that being right that the temperature is going up somehow validates the AGW "scientists" is ludicrous. Is it rational, as the AGW "scientists" argue, to destroy our civilization, and kill millions of people (even unintentionally, they are still dead, and rolling back civilization in favor of nature always costs lives, just ask the 45 million Africans who have died of Malaria to "save the birds" after we stopped using DDT http://www.discoverthenetworks... http://www.who.int/malaria/med... )

If the global temperature will rise another 0.3C in the next 100 years before falling 2C in the following 500 years is it in any way rational to divert funds from the most efficient and economical solutions to problems like energy, transportation, heating and AC? I will answer for you: No, it is not. Is there any moral, legal or rational justification for redistributing by force natural resources or money to countries more affected by global warming if AGW is not real? No there is not. There are some very key results if AGW is real or not that come into play.

Scientific fact says CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution were measured between 250 and 550 PPM. Therefore, our measurements today do not indicate much, if any, change in CO2 concentrations globally. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that plant growth is limited primarily by CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and that is where all the CO2 has been going as we produce it. This theory has been thoroughly tested and proven scientifically (if you increase CO2 concentrations locally, keeping other factors constant, plant growth is more rapid, more dense and the overall carbon capture rate increases.) This is scientific fact, not pull it out of your ass speculation.

Furthermore, hard science says that the earth's atmosphere is already 100% opaque in the 3 IR bands that CO2 absorbs. Thus, arguing more CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming is wild speculation at best and at worst irrational/disingenuous.

Unlike your (incorrect) assertions, I do not follow others, I have and will continue to evaluate the evidence myself. I am happy to make a prediction for you: The climate will change. It will be either hotter or cooler than it is today. Glaciers will either grow or shrink. Sea levels will either rise or fall. The one constant that we know is that the climate is never constant. To assert that what we see today is atypical and caused by humans based on the last 300 years of observation is irrational and completely ignores the facts at hand. https://static.skepticalscienc...

All those claims about how good our global warming models are, yet none of them factored in what may be happening right now under those ice sheets.

That's because it is extreamly tiny. Now, those of us doing ice models, do consider it. We've known for a while that West Antarctica had volcanoes hidden under the ice and had high geothermal flux. This article simply maps what was already known.

CO2 already blocks 100% (it is opaque) in the bands of IR that it interferes with

https://skepticalscience.com/s...

Looks like the authors of the study didn't look at the Debunking handbook, which basically says: always show the fact before (and after) the myth, explain where the myth went wrong, make the fact somehow more memorable or "sticky" than the myth, and don't overdo your rebuttal. If you play your card just right, you might get small decreases in rates of belief in the myth. Any mistake and you risk a backfire effect. To make this more difficult, many myths are driven by conspiratorial thinking, which has a self-sealing quality in which people think: "perhaps the debunker is one of them!"

I would even argue (since this is slashdot a real scientist can please correct me if I am wrong), that the recent medieval warming period was hotter than today!

Or was it?

Records show farms in Greenland by the Vikings and wineries in Scotland

Even if this was true (I'm not quite sure of the current interpretation of the historical record), this is a very select part of the world. The global average includes more than just two or three places that bothered to take some records.

Maybe not 8C warmer for sure, but yes warmer than today's weather by far.

Hell, no.

For your perusal:

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

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

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

There's a lot more there and at realclimate.org

One important point to remember: drawing inferences using periods of less than 30 years is widely recognized as a bad idea because of all the natural variations that happen within that period. CO2 concentration isn't the only thing that affects global climate. You also have cycles of the Sun, El Ninos and La Ninas and so on.

Also, it is important to factor in other human influences. In the 1940-1980 period, for example, you had an unusually high concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere, due to the post-war rapid re-industrialization of various parts of the world, and the over reliance on said aerosols. This caused a global cooling effect - despite the continued increase in CO2 concentrations - since aerosols reflect sunlight. Good in theory, but it also wrecked the Ozone layer, which is worse news.

My point? Climate is complex. Simplistic analyses that draw conclusions without looking at the big picture help no one.

Our current best understanding of the matter says that CO2 is a major driver of global warming, CO2 concentrations are increasing, and it is our fault. There's very strong evidence that this is correct, and only a major upset would challenge these assertions (and scientists have been trying to prove this wrong!). You'll find a lively - and more importantly, evidence based - debate at the sites I pointed out, including links to the raw and processed data from multiple sources, satellite data, papers, and so on.

This, however, is the science. The politics - basically, how do we deal with that - is a whole other can of worms.

For your perusal:

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

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

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

There's a lot more there and at realclimate.org

One important point to remember: drawing inferences using periods of less than 30 years is widely recognized as a bad idea because of all the natural variations that happen within that period. CO2 concentration isn't the only thing that affects global climate. You also have cycles of the Sun, El Ninos and La Ninas and so on.

Also, it is important to factor in other human influences. In the 1940-1980 period, for example, you had an unusually high concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere, due to the post-war rapid re-industrialization of various parts of the world, and the over reliance on said aerosols. This caused a global cooling effect - despite the continued increase in CO2 concentrations - since aerosols reflect sunlight. Good in theory, but it also wrecked the Ozone layer, which is worse news.

My point? Climate is complex. Simplistic analyses that draw conclusions without looking at the big picture help no one.

Our current best understanding of the matter says that CO2 is a major driver of global warming, CO2 concentrations are increasing, and it is our fault. There's very strong evidence that this is correct, and only a major upset would challenge these assertions (and scientists have been trying to prove this wrong!). You'll find a lively - and more importantly, evidence based - debate at the sites I pointed out, including links to the raw and processed data from multiple sources, satellite data, papers, and so on.

This, however, is the science. The politics - basically, how do we deal with that - is a whole other can of worms.

For your perusal:

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

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

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

There's a lot more there and at realclimate.org

One important point to remember: drawing inferences using periods of less than 30 years is widely recognized as a bad idea because of all the natural variations that happen within that period. CO2 concentration isn't the only thing that affects global climate. You also have cycles of the Sun, El Ninos and La Ninas and so on.

Also, it is important to factor in other human influences. In the 1940-1980 period, for example, you had an unusually high concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere, due to the post-war rapid re-industrialization of various parts of the world, and the over reliance on said aerosols. This caused a global cooling effect - despite the continued increase in CO2 concentrations - since aerosols reflect sunlight. Good in theory, but it also wrecked the Ozone layer, which is worse news.

My point? Climate is complex. Simplistic analyses that draw conclusions without looking at the big picture help no one.

Our current best understanding of the matter says that CO2 is a major driver of global warming, CO2 concentrations are increasing, and it is our fault. There's very strong evidence that this is correct, and only a major upset would challenge these assertions (and scientists have been trying to prove this wrong!). You'll find a lively - and more importantly, evidence based - debate at the sites I pointed out, including links to the raw and processed data from multiple sources, satellite data, papers, and so on.

This, however, is the science. The politics - basically, how do we deal with that - is a whole other can of worms.

Why would you think it's a good idea to cherry pick tide gauges, instead of taking the average of all of them ?

https://skepticalscience.com/s...

That represents 4761904760 Hiroshima bombs of energy added to the system, or about 3.2 per second. About 4/5ths of that energy accumulated in the top 700 meters. The rate of warming is accelerating, meaning that the top of atmosphere energy imbalance is increasing. The impacts of the warming are already being observed, even at this early stage.

This is why Trump won the election, instead of trying to actually debate, you just immediately jump to insulting the poster for being stupid instead of actually trying to convince them of your side.

You might be surprised, but Trump didn't win the election because of any such thing.

He underperformed George W. Bush. He was below Obama, and Hillary. Only chance let him slink into office.

No landslide. No great gains. Not that you'll accept that, you have to blame the evul mean libruls.

The left might be surprised at the number of people they could persuade if they actually debated people instead of insisting that every issue is not open for discussion because the other side is wrong.

You might be surprised, but the left is used to dealing with the number of people on the right who are non-persuadable and who can't be debated, because they insist that the left isn't worth discussing anything with since they are wrong.

What can you in that circumstance, except move on?

Because at a certain point, you wash your hands of somebody, and that's what is happening with most of the discussion on AGW, pollution, and more.

Ever think about that?

According to google, the primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere which is a very small percentage. Water vapor ranges from 1-4%. Another way to say that is there is 25-100 times more water vapor that CO2.

See, this is where you show a lack of integrity, because you know what? According to google, the folks talking about Global Warming know that, and can give you intelligent responses on it.

You'd think you'd mention that.

I remember just a few years ago, everyone was freaking out about the ozone disappearing (which is a greenhouse gas), now it's too much co2.

It wasn't ozone disappearing. It was the Ozone Layer a beneficial shield that blocks UV radiation. And yes, we were worried about the effects of various human activity, including CFCs on it.

Of course, once the Montreal Protocol was enacted, it became less of an issue, like leaded gasoline> or Acid Rain.

Amazing, huh?

The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rounding error compared to water vapor and should have a negligible effect unless it somehow behaves differently than water vapor. I honestly would like to know is C02 that much more potent than water vapor or does it somehow behave differently?

You would? You know this discussion has come up before, right?

You know, if you showed some awareness that we've already been over this, maybe you'd persuade people that you're worth convincing, and not just consumed by your own hand-wringing as you feign disgruntlement over a couple of anonymous cowards being uncivil.

Hiding behind the mantra of "the other side is evil and stupid so I won't engage" doesn't help anyone.

Hiding behind t

I don't know why these global warming idiots just don't do their own research before opening their mouths.

Did you ever think that maybe we did?

"It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation."

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years"

"It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation."

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years"

Why the above is a bunch of bullshit:

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

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

The greenhouse effect is a real thing. Deal with it.

Why the above is a bunch of bullshit:

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

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

The greenhouse effect is a real thing. Deal with it.

As I understand it, the biggest problem is NOT climate change or any other such disaster; the problem is human interference. They have channeled and canalled and levee'd and dredged the Mississippi output. The water -full of silt - that used to wash over the delta and deposit replacement dirt on the marshes and islands during heavy flow days (?) now is channeled along the river between high banks and well out to sea.

There are many factors. Sea level rise is one of them. As it is the one that is accelerating, it is likely to play an ever increasing role.

Read this:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1...
It gave me a fairly good understanding of how the IR absorption with CO2. Some parts of it is speculation, but the basic science of how it works looks to be sound if compared with:
https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

(With the above, please use more than one source for your data.. Look for multiple sources before just accepting and single one as fact)

It's more complex than testing it in a lab... More studies are needed and that requires us to throw some cash at it... Screaming "climate change denier" does nothing except causes us to ignore valid data, and that may cause us to throw a lot more $$ on the issue that we would need to.

Not saying we are not causing it... i'm saying "we don't know" and we need more research into the issue..

We may need to act like we are the cause before knowing for sure we are the cause to prevent it from getting worse. If it turns out we are not the cause it may have cost us a big of $$ but if it turns out we are the cause without acting it may wipe out a large chunk of earth's population.

Because the current climate change is anthropogenic.

With claims it's "human-caused" without any scientific basis.

No, showing the reasoning with references to the hundreds of peer reviewed scholarly papers that provide the basis for that reasoning is with scientific basis.

"Without scientific basis" means without reference to the scholarly literature, and generally also without sound reasoning or true axioms.

And all these smart people lauding this shit can't answer how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?

As of 2000 it's about 80% of the past 100 years, and about 110% of the past 50 years.

I'm not denying climate change, hell, i'm not denying that it's in part human cause... but screaming that human-caused climate change rerouted a river is a fucking hyperbole.

The current climate change is human caused. That's not hyperbole. It's certainly not fucking hyperbole. And calling something fucking hyperbole without any scientific basis is ironic considering how your post began.

Well:
1) If you measure all the sources of radiative forcing, you see that the natural ones are pretty much negligible with respect to the current warming, where as the "human-caused" ones are large.

2) There have been papers that split the warming into the warming that would have happened from natural forcing, and that which would have happened from anthropogenic forcing. ((paper). Satisfyingly, the warming that has happened from the sum of the forcings, is approximately the sum of the warmings from each forcing. So it's nice and additive, therefore statements like "x% of the warming of the past y years is anthropogenic" are meaningful. Such as "80% of the warming of the past 100 years is anthropogenic" or "110% of the warming of the past 50 years is anthropogenic".

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I think you're looking for numbers 12, 30, 46, and 50.

Forget the real world. >Because real-world results don't matter. What did your MODEL that hasn't successfully predicted sunrise direction for the last 15 years say?

If you are snarking about climate models, in fact the climate models have been remarkably accurate over the last fifty years. Here's the Berkeley Earth comparison between models and measurements: http://static.berkeleyearth.or... (See also: https://www.skepticalscience.c... https://www.theguardian.com/en... )

And why have you been ignoring more accurate satellite-based measurements of the sunrise and selectively using only ground-based measurements that have been, errr, corrected from the original data?

You ARE aware that satellite measurements are heavily corrected, right? The satellites see a line-of-sight average of microwave emissions, and there is a rather long and controversial process to turn microwave emission intensity into middle troposphere temperatures. One researcher (John Christy) has a correction method that produces an output that says that global warming is real, but it's on the low end of the predicted values. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... Other researchers using the same data, however, come up with other answers.

The ground measurements, on the other hand, have had relatively minor corrections to account for changes of the type of thermometer, the corrections being well-documented, and (an important thing to note) the change due to corrections making no significant difference to the final conclusion.

Tree ring data matches well with other proxies, until about 1960 when they started to diverge.

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

Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. Skepticalscience.com has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.

Look, I am sure you won't like this or agree, but as a human being, I can only say it as best as I have come to see it, and from trying to follow this issue over the last 15 years or so, there's a couple of things I see quite clearly, albeit, had I not read the stuff I read, I would not see it this way, but for what it is worth, as reasoned debate here's a couple of key points:

All of us are part of one sub culture or another and we all make value judgements. The environmental movement is a values driven culture, and is broadly about human's place in the ecosystem, which is a values judgement which says that humanity is one species on the planet. That particular values judgement downplays the role of human, seeing human as just another species. That's kinda the deep ecology view. Now there's variations on that, as not everyone goes that far, but that is an example of values judgements. That humans are less valuable than forests.

Now your values judgements may or may not line up with that. That's not my point. My point is that you are making values judgements, one sort or another, as for example, all the people who say we must act, and then pick solutions which are base do the belief that humans are essentially selfish and consume too much and don't know how to live in balance.

People who say that would not, for example, say that a human is a part of nature, created by nature, and that a human is merely living out their natural competition and drive in evolutionary natural selection to become the dominant species and transform as much raw material as possible into survival advantage, and that therefore the answer to running out of resources is to go to space and mine asteroids, because that's what nature does, expand and propagate life as fas as possible.

Can you see the implied values judgements in saying that humans should cut back on consumption? Now I'm not saying that's a wrong judgment, but it is a judgment, ie. ethics and not facts, it is a human ethical judgement, and only then do people decide what we "must" do to combat climate change. Instead, people who don't have this judgment about selfishness will more normally go for the "adapt" with "new technology" ideas, rather than the "reduce" and "consume less" ideas.

Climate change as an issue about solutions is all about values judgements. And that's why oil companies as symbols of big bad polluting uncaring capitalism are seen as the only ones driving the politics, whereas the good guys like wind are seen as just doing the right thing based on the facts.

Yet, we use lots of energy so any solution will be a big solution, and wind farms are not little friendly wind mills, they are billion dollar installations, and before long they'll be trillion dollars' worth of installations, and that by definition is big energy, and I find it hard to believe that those big companies don't have vested interests in promoting the idea of man made climate change and decarbonisation.

And nuclear has a vested interest too. Now we may say they are

why wouldn't you cite Ljungqvist's 2010 30-proxy reconstruction, which was more widely supported? Ljungqvist's chart [lwhancock.com] Is it because it shows both the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Roman warm period were just as warm or warmer than today?

Perhaps because he's already read the rebuttalls? And that Ljungqvist himself doesn't agree with how his results are being interpreted?
But try not to let that upset you because the Medieval Warm Period poses a thorny conundrum for den....er "skeptics"
If it did happen as they claim, that implies that climate sensitivity is on the high end of the scale

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

Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. Skepticalscience.com has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.

Global temperatures were overall cooler during this period.

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

You do know that all of the adjustments to data are documented, and the source code is public, right? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...

You do know that all of the previous data is still archived, and you can look at it, right? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...

You do know that the much-vaunted changes are small, and make no difference to the ultimate conclusion, right? http://berkeleyearth.org/under...

You do know that many different groups have looked at the data independently and gotten the same result, right? https://www.skepticalscience.c...