Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Anyone who uses the Consensus argument doesn't understand Science...because Science ISN'T about consensus...it's about the Scientific Method, which the MMGW Cultists Run from, so they use the fake Consensus as cover.

If it's not about the consensus, then why do you need to call it "fake"?

As a "scientist", you of course know that one disproves a given theory by reviewing the observations (if repeating them isn't feasible) and repeating the processes and analyses that led to the stated conclusions, to confirm where they went wrong.

The AGW-skeptic and -denier communities have left no stone unturned in seeking and reporting every data anomaly or scientific error they can find (a valid and useful activity, when done honestly)... but to my knowledge no individual, team or institution has repeated the published processing of the climate data, or undertaken an equivalent or better processing... much less published or submitted such work for peer review...

I think I know why they haven't; it's alot of work for starters, but mainly it's because I suspect they'd only prove that their quibbles are inconsequential to the final conclusions.

You would also know that if most of the experts in the field have been involved in reaching a certain conclusion, or have reviewed and backed it... you as a dissenting scientist will need to build a solid case against. A relative handful of observed anomalies or errors, without an accompanying analysis showing how they invalidate the conclusions, is hardly complete or scientific.

And bleating "MMGW cultists" at every opportunity is about as unscientific as it gets...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change | PHYS.ORG

And this one was omitted.




And - no science academy on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And bleating "MMGW cultists" at every opportunity is about as unscientific as it gets...

Of course it is...just as the movement.

See, having been on the inside of the fake movement, I know how the game works. It's not about science but a bullying consensus game, where what matters is being on the popular kids side so you get the accolades and government handout money. Arguing data and science to cultists would be like trying to convince a radical jihadist that he won't get 72 virgins if he blows himself up...why bother...let him blow himself up and find out for himself. But that doesn't mean you can't laugh at him along the way...

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And this one was omitted.




And - no science academy on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC.

Yep...makes sense to me...
The dictator’s dilemma: To win with 95 percent or 99? | Foreign Policy

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

See, having been on the inside of the fake movement, I know how the game works. It's not about science but a bullying consensus game, where what matters is being on the popular kids side so you get the accolades and government handout money. Arguing data and science to cultists would be like trying to convince a radical jihadist that he won't get 72 virgins if he blows himself up...why bother...let him blow himself up and find out for himself. But that doesn't mean you can't laugh at him along the way...

I thought the only useful response to bad science was better science... shows how naive i am, I guess.

It's interesting that the 'game' was ok when you played and profited from it, but not now that you've retired from it.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's interesting that the 'game' was ok when you played and profited from it, but not now that you've retired from it.

Not at all...I could still be in it (my old biz partner is) and raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the scam. But there is this little thing called a conscious and the need I have to do something real vs fake BS. So, as I talked about before, I got out of the scam before it corrupted me.

And besides, selling your soul for the Fad de jour never works out well at the end of the day, because the little guy at the bottom always gets left holding the bag of poop. You got any hula hoops left in your garage?
Did you build a bunker for the Population Bomb Scam?
Or maybe you bought into the Peak Oil Myth?
How about the Bran muffin Fad or the Low Fat Diet Scam?

If the climate models can't predict the future they are not called models...the are called tarot cards. Tarot cards of the MMGW Cult...

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Arguing data and science to cultists would be like trying to convince a radical jihadist that he won't get 72 virgins if he blows himself up...why bother...let him blow himself up and find out for himself. But that doesn't mean you can't laugh at him along the way...

Dentists, Crest, and now... no f*%#ing virgins???

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If it's not about the consensus, then why do you need to call it "fake"?

As a "scientist", you of course know that one disproves a given theory by reviewing the observations (if repeating them isn't feasible) and repeating the processes and analyses that led to the stated conclusions, to confirm where they went wrong.

The AGW-skeptic and -denier communities have left no stone unturned in seeking and reporting every data anomaly or scientific error they can find (a valid and useful activity, when done honestly)... but to my knowledge no individual, team or institution has repeated the published processing of the climate data, or undertaken an equivalent or better processing... much less published or submitted such work for peer review...

I think I know why they haven't; it's alot of work for starters, but mainly it's because I suspect they'd only prove that their quibbles are inconsequential to the final conclusions.

You would also know that if most of the experts in the field have been involved in reaching a certain conclusion, or have reviewed and backed it... you as a dissenting scientist will need to build a solid case against. A relative handful of observed anomalies or errors, without an accompanying analysis showing how they invalidate the conclusions, is hardly complete or scientific.

And bleating "MMGW cultists" at every opportunity is about as unscientific as it gets...

With perhaps one notable exception:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic | New York Times

By RICHARD A. MULLER
JULY 28, 2012

Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.

Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”

[SV THIRD DAY]

Perfect...he is back in the Club now and will get grants, publicity, love and admiration, and most importantly, the protests against him will stop.
But when you have Fake temp data...of course it shows warming...but fake is still fake.

Tell me what you want the data to show...and bingo...it magically is adjusted to show it...ha ha ha ....funny

[Kenomac]

Addressed to the GW hysteria crowd:

Ice melts when the temperature rises. If the temp has been rising... please show evidence of where the high tide mark has changed anywhere in the world over the pat 50 years. Places other than where people have built on river deltas, on marsh land or other areas that are sinking or settling.

Haven't noticed it here in New England, Southern California, Mexico or in the Mediterranean.

Where is all the melted ice water from glaziers going??

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Addressed to the GW hysteria crowd:

Ice melts when the temperature rises. If the temp has been rising... please show evidence of where the high tide mark has changed anywhere in the world over the pat 50 years. Places other than where people have built on river deltas, on marsh land or other areas that are sinking or settling.

Haven't noticed it here in New England, Southern California, Mexico or in the Mediterranean.

Where is all the melted ice water from glaziers going??

OK - pay close attention. Everywhere you mentioned sea level is rising.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Where is all the melted ice water from glaziers going??

At the moment it's in Texas

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - pay close attention. Everywhere you mentioned sea level is rising.]

Nice try Jack with your Link, but after reading the data, your charts are only forward looking based on continued warming temps (assuming temps are warming and will continue to do so).

No comparisons were made between the ocean levels fifty years ago and present time.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Where is all the melted ice water from glaziers going??

I did not know that window installers were a factor.

But melting glacial water eventually get to the oceans.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.htm

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I did not know that window installers were a factor.

But melting glacial water eventually get to the oceans.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.htm

Ha, ha. Spell check wins again!