Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For soothing a bit more current



Climate Change: Evidence and Causes » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

The unprecedented part is the overwhelming contribution of human activities to climate change.

I prefer the work of the last real climate scientist - before the whole field became politicised, everything was blamed on CO2 and they ignored everything before 1850.

There is NOTHING in that which addresses the climate throughout the Holocene so how can you, in good faith, compare it to Lamb's work in any way?

I didn't mention contribution, I just asked about climate change. And it's clear from Lambs work that there is nothing unprecedented about today's climate. So if human contributions are "overwhelming", what caused the changes in the past and why have they ceased?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Climate models, like most forecasting models , are heuristic.

ROTFLMAO. Now you have really shown your complete ignorance of either GCMs, the meaning of heuristic or both.

[fryewe]

I particularly like this quote from the linked article below:

Do you want to see a world without a changing climate? Look at the Moon.

History and the Limits of the Climate Consensus | The American Conservative

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

I prefer the work of the last real climate scientist - before the whole field became politicised, everything was blamed on CO2 and they ignored everything before 1850.

Lamb recognized the role of anthropogenic CO2 in climate change in the preface to the second edition of Climatic History and the Future.


How was everything before 1850 ignored? Virtually every hockey stick goes back further than that.

Not everything is blamed on CO2.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I was not intending to indicate that you or anyone said this, just trying to make the point that repeatedly linking to the same handful of prominent skeptic scientists over and over again is not the same as showing that there's a significant number of scientists lining up behind them (which still remains to be shown, I think)

You think? Careful, you might hurt yourself. Easier just to do a 3 sec. Wiki search:

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections:

David Bellamy, botanist.
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes:

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment:

Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

Dead scientists:
This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist.
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923-2011), Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the money flood" of government grants.
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.

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


Originally Posted by LakeEffect:
...you keep insisting that the government is supporting "one side", and that the institutions are playing ball (ie not doing unbiased work).

Originally Posted by Exile:
Show me where I said this.

#2052

But the fact remains that the US govt. provides the vast majority of the funding generally, and most of it goes to the establishment side.

... there are many scientists who have and continue to challenge the establishment position

... the alarmist MMGW view has been around long enough that it is in fact the entrenched, establishment position, and it's always hard to get people with vested interests at stake to change.

#2072

Yes, the establishment side. I was simply pointing out where the majority of the money goes. By "pro-AGW" research, I mean funding for those scientists & institutions that have gone on record as supporting the theory of MMGW and its predicted negative impacts.

There's others.

Yes, I am sure there are, and they are also correct. After all, you claimed I wrote that the govt. was supporting the establishment side, in exchange for those scientists to "play ball." But what I actually wrote, as you kindly quoted above, was that the majority of the govt. funding was going to the establishment side, and that this is the side that supports the theory of MMGW and its predicted negative impacts.

Why do you keep doing this, and how is what I have repeatedly stated about where the majority of govt. funding goes not simply a matter of uncontested fact? Do we need another Wiki for you? Another uncontested fact is that this govt. funding dwarfs what the big bad oil cos. are contributing to the research, for either side (yes, they contribute to both). But what does generate controversy is whether all the govt. funding has created biased research. Not "corruption" or "unprofessionalism," but rather bias. And before you post again with trivialities, please read Prof. Curry's explanations for different types of potential bias in govt-funded research:

Is federal funding biasing climate research? | Climate Etc.

Originally Posted by Exile:
Show me where I asserted "that government is behind the deliberate promotion of a crisis they may know is false."

#2091

I'll try and keep it simple for you:

(a) Because the current administration and the Democratic party believe in the science that says MMGW poses a significant threat;

and/or,

(b) It's an easier path to the type of more heavily regulated, higher taxed, more centrally planned socio-economic system that they favor for the country.

Again, a far cry from your somehow twisting this into "the govt. being behind the deliberate promotion of a crisis they may know is false." How do you propose phasing out fossil fuels without more regulation & taxation? And how does govt. transition an entire nation off a less expensive source of energy without mandates and centralized planning? There's nothing hidden here, L-E, this is simply more of the type of democratic socialist W. European model that "progressives" have very openly been steering the U.S. towards. Haven't you heard that health care is a huge proportion of the American economy and that the Affordable Care Act has now been enacted??

Maybe you could turn down the condescension a bit til you get a handle on what's actually come out of your "mouth" vs what you accuse me of putting in it.

Except that you continue to put words in my mouth, either deliberately to provoke, or because you can't seem to grasp what I'm writing. Why don't you focus your forum energy on trying to get a better handle on what is actually being disputed and why, and stop these mindless pissing contests?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Lamb recognized the role of anthropogenic CO2 in climate change in the preface to the second edition of Climatic History and the Future.


How was everything before 1850 ignored? Virtually every hockey stick goes back further than that.

Not everything is blamed on CO2.

Take at look at your "Climate Change Evidence & Causes".

BTW, which don't you understand, GCMs, heuristics or both?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

BTW, which don't you understand, GCMs, heuristics or both?

Climate Models as Heuristics by Zach Pirtle | ASU Triple Helix

That is consistent with what I learned in graduate school - Studies of the Future, University of Houston, Clear Lake, 1980-81.

[Lake-Effect]

I thought a graph would be a more efficient way to indicate that the number of scientists who support the finding of AGW. How about you list the scientific bodies and organizations who are skeptics on AGW? It's quite a short list.

Originally Posted by Exile

... you continue to put words in my mouth, either deliberately to provoke, or because you can't seem to grasp what I'm writing. Why don't you focus your forum energy on trying to get a better handle on what is actually being disputed and why, and stop these mindless pissing contests?

I've shown you where you say what I pointed out. If you won't own your own words and the bias they contain, or clarify or defend them... this is perhaps a more serious form of hypocrisy, as opposed to whether one has installed solar panels or not.

[newhaul]

The weather front that was called a normal rain event here and a blizzard now in the us east coast now blamed on el Nino. Blizzard 2016: Blame It on El Niño - The Daily Beast
Funny to me normal here to a major global warming event now that it is affecting the politicians .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The weather front that was called a normal rain event here and a blizzard now in the us east coast now blamed on el Nino. Blizzard 2016: Blame It on El Niño - The Daily Beast
Funny to me normal here to a major global warming event now that it is affecting the politicians .

El Nino is not AGW.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I thought a graph would be a more efficient way to indicate that the number of scientists who support the finding of AGW. How about you list the scientific bodies and organizations who are skeptics on AGW? It's quite a short list.



I've shown you where you say what I pointed out. If you won't own your own words and the bias they contain, or clarify or defend them... this is perhaps a more serious form of hypocrisy, as opposed to whether one has installed solar panels or not.

Well have you installed a solar panel yet?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

El Nino is not AGW.

Jack we both know that however most of the political machine in Washington DC don't and that's the problem also I said gw not agw there is a difference .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack we both know that however most of the political machine in Washington DC don't and that's the problem also I said gw not agw there is a difference .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well have you installed a solar panel yet?

My boat has had solar for 6+ years. Whose doesn't?

Have you stopped attacking climate scientists yet, as justification for your anti-AGW position?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

My boat has had solar for 6+ years. Whose doesn't?

Have you stopped attacking climate scientists yet, as justification for your anti-AGW position?

Why didn't you just say that you had solar on your boat about 80 or so pages age when people started asking ? Are you ashamed to have it ? Also I don't believe that humans can/ have affected the climate to the degree that you and some actual scientists have claimed . ( I am not a scientist but I do study history and climate does have an affect. ). My main issue with all the sky is falling bit is historical evidence says ( pre industrial) the planet warmed ( mideval warming period) and cooled ( little ice age). I just don't believe humans have had that profound of an affect. Now the main thing as I said to jack just a couple posts ago I do believe that the planet was warming . ( new evidence says it may be entering a cooling period). I just don't believe in agw as a major issue.