Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yet again, Skepticalscience peddles alarmism.

Better check with your insurance broker.

https://www.environmentalleader.com/...-toughest-foe/

It appears that global warming will hit your insurance rates.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Better check with your insurance broker.

https://www.environmentalleader.com/...-toughest-foe/

It appears that global warming will hit your insurance rates.

Nothing to do with hurricane frequency or intensity. Everything to do with population density and distribution. Oh and corporate profit, of course.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change | PHYS.ORG
Quote:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2.
Bringing together authors of seven different consensus studies,
Cook and his team show that among climate experts the rate of agreement
about human-caused climate change is between 90 to 100 percent.
Credit: University of Queensland, John Garrett

A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. The group includes Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University.
Unfortunately, the 3%-10% ended up on this thread...

The only small percentage left on this thread are those that don't seem to understand what the 91-99% of scientists supposedly agreed on (btw, those % nos. get changed around a lot). "Agreement that climate change is caused by humans" appears to be a big percentage of the scientific community indeed. So big, in fact, that it includes many of the best known skeptics. You must have missed the discussion on this the first 1,000+ posts devoted to it, but it all comes down to "how much" humans have contributed. If human influence as compared to natural forces is small then there's not much we can do. But this doesn't fare well with those who get such self-satisfaction hating the fossil fuel industry, or with the Exaggerator/Alarmist crowd who feels that scare tactics are "justified."

Further controversy abounds because the "scientists" like Cook et al. who compile these stats do so based on the 1,000's of papers, journals, articles, etc. that scientists produce, plucking what looks like some sort of opinion being offered which may or may not be relevant to the consensus "study." Fwiw, I ran across a Wiki awhile back which actually listed each scientist and his/her position on the CC issue. Not an unreasonable source I suppose, assuming it's accurate, up to date, and not overly "anti-intellectual" for some of our sages here. Otherwise it seems like this purported "consensus" is often referred to as "significant/substantial/a majority/overwhelming/91-99%/etc. so you can take your pick.

But simply posting cute graphs with different slices of pie is getting pretty old.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yet again, Skepticalscience peddles alarmism.

And SailOar was honest enough to tell us exactly why. So much for sticking to the science.

[Exile]

Might want to qualify your assumption a bit, but only to be in accord with the current state of the science:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Natural cycles would have us in a cooling phase, according to one faction of the scientific community. Other factions believe we are nearing the end of a natural warming trend that originated from the Little Ice Age (see Keno's graph above ) . Where is the cooling consensus one way or the other?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Natural cycles would have us in a cooling phase. Where is the cooling?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Might want to qualify your assumption a bit, but only to be in accord with the current state of the science:

Have any science to support assertions.

Here is what it looks like:

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535
Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

as well

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Since you referenced Richard Alley

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

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Since you referenced Richard Alley

No, I referred to a chart that even Skepticalscience cannot debunk.

Here's another

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No, I referred to a chart that even Skepticalscience cannot debunk.

Here's another

Watch the Richard Alley video - you will learn something. he also references the ice cores, that is what he studies.

[jackdale]

BTW - Joanne Nova is not a climate scientist. Richard Alley is.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Read the name on the graph - "R.B. Alley". That is who you referenced.

[Reefmagnet]

So we're not in an interglacial in your opinion? I'm unsure which point you're trying to make. Is it the same as increased insurance premiums?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW - Joanne Nova is not a climate scientist. Richard Alley is.

Ok, this is just getting weird. What's Jo Nova got to do with anything?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That graph does not appear in this paper

http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/paleo...df/alley00.pdf