Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I suspect we will see a cooling in the next two to three years due to the current wildfires. Look at the great fire of 1910 and global temperatures for the next couple years after.

"Oh happy day."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fWXFCxsxL5k

[SV THIRD DAY]

Hilarious!!!!!

[newhaul]

Don't have bandwidth for vids so cant enjoy it but I never said it was a good thing ( the fires or the cooling effects)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I suspect we will see a cooling in the next two to three years due to the current wildfires. Look at the great fire of 1910 and global temperatures for the next couple years after.

It'll be very hard to separate that from the coming cooling in the aftemath of the big El Niño.

But however much it is, I predict that it will be apparent in the satellite data but not in GISS.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I suspect we will see a cooling in the next two to three years due to the current wildfires. Look at the great fire of 1910 and global temperatures for the next couple years after.

The Russians seem to be most interested in solar science, perhaps because the money mill that spits out grants to western scientists to support the political agenda of AGW theory doesn't work there, but in any case, this is pretty interesting. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...nd_minimum.pdf

Take a look at the graphs on page 6. Hope he's wrong. I rather enjoy a bit more warmth.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Call me a skeptic, but that graph appears to show CO2 lagging temperature for the most part when temperatures decrease, and one could assume that this is also the case when temperature increases. Being the chart is an illustration of Milankovitch cycles, this would also suggest temperatures were driven by forces other than GHG'S.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? | Skeptical Science

[...] To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).


Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling–Allerød (B–A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume. Shakun et al.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

It'll be very hard to separate that from the coming cooling in the aftemath of the big El Niño.

But however much it is, I predict that it will be apparent in the satellite data but not in GISS.

That would IMO prove "cooking the books". I noticed the temp changes in the giss from 1911 thru 1913 . But I do think if there is a discrepancy in the raw between the two it will be buried and used to explain why the IPCC models are wrong again.

[SailOar]

Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy | Science Daily

Americans may be more likely to accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially devastating effects if they believe the economy is strong and stable, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

The findings may help explain why many Americans haven't been swayed by public education and advocacy efforts indicating that climate change is being caused by humans. People who are concerned about the economy and who are strong supporters of the free market system may be more skeptical about climate change and downplay its potential effects, the study found. The research was published online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

"The problem isn't primarily ignorance about this issue," said lead researcher Erin Hennes, PhD, an assistant professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University. "Even when people are exposed to the same information, their attitudes about climate change may be polarized because they perceive the information in different ways."[...]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The Russians seem to be most interested in solar science, perhaps because the money mill that spits out grants to western scientists to support the political agenda of AGW theory doesn't work there, but in any case, this is pretty interesting. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...nd_minimum.pdf

Take a look at the graphs on page 6. Hope he's wrong. I rather enjoy a bit more warmth.

I skimmed the paper and it goes exactly the opposite of the politically driven IPCC reports. Especially love the results that Sol and the earths oceans have significantly more effect on the climate than man ever could.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Delfin -- many thanks to you & others for, once again, taking the time to present your understandable, articulate, and well-sourced views on the science. If the science you are relying on is really as off-base as your detractors allege, then we should be able to anticipate equally specific, well-reasoned, science-based arguments in reply.

Unfortunately, those replies have a well-established pattern of accusing those with contrary views of political & religious bias, of "internet trolling" and environmental callousness, and of outright ignorance. Either that or they raise more questions than they answer. Needless to say, not an effective way of winning friends and influencing people towards their position. But all too predictable at this point, especially when pressed on the actual science. And all that more surprising given the nonstop banter about the overwhelming scientific "consensus," the IPCC, and other officialdom supposedly supporting their side.

I suspect Jack may have simply moved on to an audience more malleable to his bullying approach, and SailOar & L-E are busy googling more cartoons and drama-laced videos. But let's see if they or someone else can actually keep the discussion focused on the science.

I agree that Delfin's deft cut'n'paste skills and nonstop putdowns are indeed formidible, so I can understand your man-crush on him. Interesting that someone who's that dismissive, condescending and abusive can still be in your good books, as long as they sing the right tune. I guess I'm just jealous.

Delfin is not arguing with science, he's just being extra forceful lawyering with the same old denier crap that's all been defanged years ago. A good retelling doesn't make fables come true or add truth to lies. Your fawning aside, he's not scored any science-based hits. He has not holed the good ship IPCC or the finding of AGW.

There's no attraction to fighting the same crap over and over, especially when the audience is deaf to it.

The thread has mostly become just another anti-AGW echo chamber. Delfin's made denial fashionable again. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[fryewe]

"The problem isn't primarily ignorance about this issue," said lead researcher Erin Hennes, PhD, an assistant professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University. "Even when people are exposed to the same information, their attitudes about climate change may be polarized because they perceive the information in different ways."

You bet...but it's odd that it's always the knuckle-dragging right wing capitalists that just can't seem to see the light and change their thinking...and the warmists don't recognize the hypocrisy in thinking that they're always right.

Arguments that try to tie other issues such as capitalism or Republican party membership or Christianity that are thought pejorative to climate skepticism are amusing.

And when it's pointed out that the majority of engineers are skeptics it's all (to paraphrase)..."Posh...they're just engineers...not real scientists and especially not climate scientists."

The media and the left (but I repeat myself) seem to love this tack of assigning guilt by inference to unrelated correlation. How many times have you heard or seen a headline such as "Former Marine kills wife!"...only to find out the aging Marine spent two years in the USMC when he was 18-20, is now a 55 year old used car salesman, and his military service has nothing to do with the event?

[fryewe]

I agree that Delfin's deft cut'n'paste skills and nonstop putdowns are indeed formidible, so I can understand your man-crush on him. Interesting that someone who's that dismissive, condescending and abusive can still be in your good books, as long as they're persuasive. I guess I'm just jealous.

Fixed it for you.

Your jealousy likely stems from your lack of persuasiveness.

And any dismissiveness, condescension, and abusive (gag!!!) comments from Delfin don't hold a candle to your own...but I'm not surprised you can't see that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Fixed it for you.

Your jealousy likely stems from your lack of persuasiveness.

Delfin is persuasive for like all of the two minutes it takes to google up that he's just flung out some long-ago discussed and discredited factlet. Not something I expect that you're doing with his pontifications.

Preaching to the choir is not persuasion, sorry. You're applauding the performance, not the content.

And when it's pointed out that the majority of engineers are skeptics

Cite?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by StuM

It'll be very hard to separate that from the coming cooling in the aftemath of the big El Niño.

El Nino...what el Nino?

The predictions were hyped and fell short for most of California that was warned of massive crazy rain. Too bay they can't accurately make predictions 365 days in advance, but they some believe predictions 20yrs in advance, despite the evidence that past predictions have been no more accurate than a game of chance.

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I suspect we will see a cooling in the next two to three years due to the current wildfires. Look at the great fire of 1910 and global temperatures for the next couple years after.

You are not supposed to notice that forest fires (massive releases of CO2!) are linked to COOLING.