Bad news for Climate Change.

originally posted by: network dude
www.express.co.uk...

The study in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate predicts temperature rises of 1.66C compared to one IPCC forecast of 3.1C and 1.33C compared to another IPCC study predicting 1.9C. The 2015 Paris climate agreement sought to limit climate change to 2C above pre-industrial levels and no more than 1.5C if possible. Mr Lewis, said: “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.” Governments around the world base their preparation for tackling climate change on the IPCC models.

Please remember, I didn't write this, nor did I invent it, I'm just reporting it. SO it's not my fault that manbearpig was exaggerated slightly.

Yes, it seems we may have been a tiny bit premature in making the drastic claims we did on climate change. But don't fret, there is still a chance this study was wrong and we will still die in a fiery explosion very soon.

And there still should be a strong effort to reduce emissions, remove the pollution from farming into rivers, and change the way we commute. We just need to do it because it's the right thing, not because we are being guilted into it. And as always, have a nice day.

Remember that's one study, against thousands of studies. Just saying that we need to look at the big picture and can never get caught up in one study. You're stuck looking at one tree and miss the entire forest.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: network dude

A) express.UK?!!

Sounds real credible.

B) that is how the propaganda whores get the sheep to do their bidding..


Scientists say :” humans are making the planet hotter”.


And different scientists have different projections on how fast it will change and how bad it will get, but they all agree it’s happening and humans are causing it..


Then the propagandists go find the most extreme projection and pretend ANY deviation from that extreme is proof “it’s all a vast conspiracy BY OBAMA!!”


Lol..


It is toddler logic that people should see right through..


But what is left of conservatism if you remove the random accounts of nobodies as “proof of what the left wants to do”?


Nothing..


I can’t think of one right wing talking point that is not on the thousands of years old list of logical fallacies...

humans are causing all of it, some of it? How much of it is caused by humans? How did humans cause it before we had industry? How did humans cause it before we had humans? See, unless you can offer definitive answers, with sourced peer reviewed data, I'm afraid I will have to hold out hope that perhaps there are factors that haven't been thought of yet, that may change the direction of the doomsday predictions.

And when you disagree with an article, just claiming you don't like the source isn't quite good enough. You kind of have to explain your position, so as to not look like a cry baby. It may well be all wrong, but until you can show how and why, I'm afraid your words are quite empty.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: network dude

or the changes that were made because of the scientific predictions are the reason the numbers are lower.

How many years of industrial activity did it take for humans to screw up the atmosphere with too much CO2 ... but because we all made the appropriate motions these last few years ... we have *saved* ourselves!!

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: network dude

A) express.UK?!!

Sounds real credible.

B) that is how the propaganda whores get the sheep to do their bidding..


Scientists say :” humans are making the planet hotter”.


And different scientists have different projections on how fast it will change and how bad it will get, but they all agree it’s happening and humans are causing it..


Then the propagandists go find the most extreme projection and pretend ANY deviation from that extreme is proof “it’s all a vast conspiracy BY OBAMA!!”


Lol..


It is toddler logic that people should see right through..


But what is left of conservatism if you remove the random accounts of nobodies as “proof of what the left wants to do”?


Nothing..


I can’t think of one right wing talking point that is not on the thousands of years old list of logical fallacies...

humans are causing all of it, some of it? How much of it is caused by humans? How did humans cause it before we had industry? How did humans cause it before we had humans? See, unless you can offer definitive answers, with sourced peer reviewed data, I'm afraid I will have to hold out hope that perhaps there are factors that haven't been thought of yet, that may change the direction of the doomsday predictions.

And when you disagree with an article, just claiming you don't like the source isn't quite good enough. You kind of have to explain your position, so as to not look like a cry baby. It may well be all wrong, but until you can show how and why, I'm afraid your words are quite empty.

Here's a quote from the Union of concerned Scientists...

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main heat-trapping gas largely responsible for most of the average warming over the past several decades.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased dramatically, from a pre-industrial era (AD 1000 – 1750) concentration of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) to today's 400 ppm.

Scientists warned for years about this dangerous threshold, but with the accelerated pace of emissions the question changed from whether we would reach CO2 concentrations above 400ppm to when.

The Arctic reached 400 ppm in 2012. In 2013 the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii recorded more than 400ppm. In March 2015 global averages reached this threshold, and in September 2016 the world reached a point of no-return: CO2 concentration levels are unlikely to dip below 400 ppm again.


Click to enlarge. Direct Evidence of Fossil Fuel Derived CO2 in the Atmosphere. While the concentration of carbon has increased, the carbon originating from natural sources has decreased.
We know human activities are driving the increase in CO2 concentrations because atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source. Scientists can tease apart how much CO2 comes from natural sources, and how much comes from combusted fossil fuel sources.

Compared to other carbon sources, carbon from fossil fuels has a distinctly different “signature,” essentially the relative amount of heavier or lighter atoms of carbon (technically δ13C). The more negative the δ13C, the higher the proportion of carbon from fossil fuels.

Over the years, δ13C has decreased while the overall amount of CO2 has increased. This information tells scientists that fossil fuel emissions are the largest contributor of CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial era.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: network dude
www.express.co.uk...

The study in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate predicts temperature rises of 1.66C compared to one IPCC forecast of 3.1C and 1.33C compared to another IPCC study predicting 1.9C. The 2015 Paris climate agreement sought to limit climate change to 2C above pre-industrial levels and no more than 1.5C if possible. Mr Lewis, said: “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.” Governments around the world base their preparation for tackling climate change on the IPCC models.

Please remember, I didn't write this, nor did I invent it, I'm just reporting it. SO it's not my fault that manbearpig was exaggerated slightly.

Yes, it seems we may have been a tiny bit premature in making the drastic claims we did on climate change. But don't fret, there is still a chance this study was wrong and we will still die in a fiery explosion very soon.

And there still should be a strong effort to reduce emissions, remove the pollution from farming into rivers, and change the way we commute. We just need to do it because it's the right thing, not because we are being guilted into it. And as always, have a nice day.

Remember that's one study, against thousands of studies. Just saying that we need to look at the big picture and can never get caught up in one study. You're stuck looking at one tree and miss the entire forest.

I'm passing on some information I read. I do happen to agree with it, but nowhere in anything I wrote do I suggest that this proves anything. Is it wrong to investigate things that go against the 97% of settled science? If you don't stop to study that one tree, you will go through life never understanding what makes up a forest.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: network dude
www.express.co.uk...

The study in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate predicts temperature rises of 1.66C compared to one IPCC forecast of 3.1C and 1.33C compared to another IPCC study predicting 1.9C. The 2015 Paris climate agreement sought to limit climate change to 2C above pre-industrial levels and no more than 1.5C if possible. Mr Lewis, said: “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.” Governments around the world base their preparation for tackling climate change on the IPCC models.

Please remember, I didn't write this, nor did I invent it, I'm just reporting it. SO it's not my fault that manbearpig was exaggerated slightly.

Yes, it seems we may have been a tiny bit premature in making the drastic claims we did on climate change. But don't fret, there is still a chance this study was wrong and we will still die in a fiery explosion very soon.

And there still should be a strong effort to reduce emissions, remove the pollution from farming into rivers, and change the way we commute. We just need to do it because it's the right thing, not because we are being guilted into it. And as always, have a nice day.

Remember that's one study, against thousands of studies. Just saying that we need to look at the big picture and can never get caught up in one study. You're stuck looking at one tree and miss the entire forest.

I'm passing on some information I read. I do happen to agree with it, but nowhere in anything I wrote do I suggest that this proves anything. Is it wrong to investigate things that go against the 97% of settled science? If you don't stop to study that one tree, you will go through life never understanding what makes up a forest.

Could point and keep posting. You tend to put forth some good arguments instead of the usual tired old rants about Al Gore etc etc that so many people keep posting.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: network dude

If the study your article was based on wasn't made by a person that has admitidly been on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry since 2007 then I would consider it being of merrit.

Problem is Judith Curry has been a shill for the fossil fuel industry since 2007. The entire OP is based off of Judith Currys paper.

you may be 100% right. (even better than 97% I believe) but not liking someone isn't a valid reason to discredit an article. If you can explain what is wrong, and show why, then perhaps we will all learn something and be better people for it. There are a few posters here I don't care for (and one I really don't like at all), but I can't just discount what they write based on that alone. I have to read what they write first, then realize how ignorant it really is. I know you know this, so if confuses me as to why you would write it.

originally posted by: pteridine

Search on Climategate. The conspiracy was to keep the R&D money flowing and allow basking in limelight for environmentalists and to make Al Gore even richer selling carbon credits.

Carbon; the ultimate taxable material - in all fuels, manufacture, agriculture, even breathing. Not only taxes but control of all processes vital to living and industry. They're in too deep to back out now so we went from global warming to the all-inclusive "climate change".

Before anyone puts their faith in the IPCC they might do well to research the UN, it's founders, it's mission, it's history. Alger Hiss was the first US representative.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: pteridine

Search on Climategate. The conspiracy was to keep the R&D money flowing and allow basking in limelight for environmentalists and to make Al Gore even richer selling carbon credits.

Carbon; the ultimate taxable material - in all fuels, manufacture, agriculture, even breathing. Not only taxes but control of all processes vital to living and industry. They're in too deep to back out now so we went from global warming to the all-inclusive "climate change".

Before anyone puts their faith in the IPCC they might do well to research the UN, it's founders, it's mission, it's history. Alger Hiss was the first US representative.

Two things. Al Gore is not smart enough or powerful enough to be the mastermind behind the biggest conspiracy in the History of planet earth. There's no way. You put way too much stock in that guy.

Second. Follow the money. Who is really bankrolling any "opposition' articles and research and PR against global warming? Fossil Fuel, entrenched monopoly power companies and auto makers. That's the conspiracy, right there.

As the joke goes....Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis to raise taxes, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies. LOL (you guys to realize that any government...take the US for example can just raise taxes any time they want and we'll just take it and pay it...they do that all the time. They don't need an environmental crisis to raise taxes.)


So if governments don't need a valid reason, or can just make up a reason to raise taxes..no one needs an environmental crisis to raise taxes...then where is this conspiracy again?

a reply to: amazing

In case you haven't noticed, people get mighty angry when taxes are just arbitrarily raised for no good reason that the people as a whole cannot accept.

So, "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING! Unless we raise your taxes by 11ty billion %, we will not be able to figure out how to stop it and OH GOD! OH GOD! WEESA GONNA DIE!"

Raise enough panic, and the people buy in and fall all over themselves to give you their money. It's not rocket science. Most people don't think that deeply or critically when they're scared about the sky falling on them.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

So you agree that pollution is a man made problem and that we should be doing something about it.

Yes, at the individual and community levels, not forced by threat of lawsuit and imprisonment by a government entity.

But isn't your argument that climate change isn't real?

No, and I've never once said that. The climate has been changing ever since space rocks coalesced into a ball held together by increasing pressure from gravity.

Don't you think that all that pollution causes a change in climate here on earth?

A flat answer is no, because not all pollution has the real potential to effect climate at all. Speaking in such absolutes would be silly.

The things I said about trump and pollution are true. He is allowing more pollution to enter our environment.

No, you are just assuming that things that he's done are allowing that to happen. I see that you didn't present any proof of the claim, so I'll stop discussing that with you since you don't want to verify your opinion with reality. Remember, you made the positive claim here, not me, so the onus is on you to prove it if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

It sounded like you thought pollution is a problem....just not if trump says it's ok?

Ummm...that's the most logically fallacious thing I've read about me in a while--I never said anything of the sort. But if you equate asking for proof with such an asinine claim about me, so be it.

But if trump is your god let me help you feel better by saying trumps tax bill is great. And so is his efforts to cut back our bloated bureaucracy. But on the epa he is very wrong. And I have no problem calling him out on that .

Now you're just entering the realm of stupidity--I didn't even vote for the guy, let alone see him as a god. Stop being ridiculous.

denier was not used by me as an attack. I am sorry if you felt attack. That is the last time I will apologies for it. Your just going to have to get over it.

Ummm...I specifically said that I didn't take offense to it--I literally wrote that out and told you that to ensure that you wouldn't misconstrue what I said.

A lot of good that did. I don't want your apologies, I'm just requesting that you stop with the absurd hyperbole and at least pretend that you want to have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

If you are unwilling, I'll move on.

Nevermind, I'll just move on...I promised my wife that I would cut back on arguing with people like you.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

WLYB?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

97% of all climate scientists are now smoking, driving SUV's, using hair spray.

You might have mistook 'scientist' with 'Charlie Sheen.'

I've said it before-you want the word of the long term locals and stick around, because you can't just fly in an out and fly out and expect consistent results. I've been the same region for more than 20 years and you could set your clock to the summer storms and autumn monsoons, today you cannot. Yes some volcanic eruptions can have some effect, but in my part of the world they wouldn't effect the monsoon due to the corealis effect.

a reply to: network dude

The Climate Change Deniers Religion is the same argument every other religion has ever made.

We will all go to a burning firey place if we do not give them the tithes their priests demand.
When nature creates a force of destruction, it is the fault of those who do not capitulate to the demands of their priests.
This will require a sacrifice from all at the alter of our god; or all will perish in Hell on this Earth.

Blah blah blah.

They may have changed the vocabulary used, but the philosophy of the threat is as old as time itself. Priests are now scientists. Gods are now "causes". Tithes are now called taxes - or "carbon offsets". But again, the formula for the religion is the same as all other religions before it.

As an atheist, I treat it with the same faith I place in all other religions; which is none.

But those members of the Climate Change Deniers Cult will never admit the truth out loud; climate changes regardless of our "climate sins" or "transgressions against the Earth". For all anyone knows we are extending man's available time on Earth by burning things before we ultimately go the way of every other species before us and all die off... No one knows; those acting like they do are no better than a priest clamoring on about your salavation.

a reply to: GenerationGap

I put it this way. My house get's colder and warmer due to earths natural cycles and the solar systems natural cycles.

I can literally sit there and do nothing and my house will get warmer in summer whether I want it to or not. It would be silly of me to assume that I can change or stand in the face of those sheer natural and undeniable forces, but irregardless of any natural cycle I have the ability to flick a switch and heat my house with my own actions.

To do this though, I must of course tithe my local utility company that hates my solar panels and does everything in it's power to diminish the monetary and energy benefits I might get from them.

Blah

a reply to: GenerationGap

I'll say a little prayer for both you and Al Gore this evening.

Attention!!

All rules for polite debate will be enforced.
Community Announcement re: Decorum
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!


You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

One thing I've learned about science and its so-called consensuses over the years is that they change.

Once upon a time, everyone *knew* that bad air caused disease, and they laughed when the first people stepped forward claiming that these itty bitty tiny things called bacteria actually did it.

Once upon a time, everyone *knew* all dinosaurs were so big and heavy they couldn't exist without water to support their weight, but that's OK, prehistoric earth was a swampy hot-house. Look how that has changed.

Similarly, once upon a time, no one knew why the dinosaurs all went extinct, but then this guy came forward who claimed it was a single impact event that did it ... but today, now that everyone *knows* that's what did it, they are starting to question if that one impact actually was enough to wipe them out ...

Once upon a time, everyone *knew* that The Iliad was just a fictional poem. Then someone dug up Troy.

Once upon a time, everyone *knew* that the sun circled the earth. Then Copernicus said "Nah!"

Right now, everyone simply *knows* that any recent climatic change is all our fault, but imagine what we might be thinking about all this tomorrow.

a reply to: ketsuko

That reminds me of the recommendations of "science" when it came to the temperature of water you use to brush your teeth. In the 60's, the ADA scientists said hot water was better. Then in the 70's the ADA scientists said they were wrong, and the data showed that cold water made the bristles on the brush more sturdy and therefore prevented more plaque from building up. Then in the late 70's early 80's they changed the recommendation again, saying that warmer water helped better dissolve the grime on teeth. Point is, it took three decades for science to decide what's better for brushing your teeth; hot water or cold water.

Today I would think the consensus of science is to once again brush with cold water, as hot water requires burning coal in the power plant down the street to heat it up in your water heater. Yet one more sacrifice we must make to keep the oceans from creating a watery hell on Earth...

a reply to: ketsuko

Few years? Your a bit behind. Eviromental regulation has been going on since at least my entire life.

Slowly getting better as time went by.
My first introduction into what harm we were doing to the planet was with the hole in the ozone.
But thankfully after many years of cutting back or banning specific types of chemicals we are finally seeing an improvement on that front.

The vast hole in the ozone was discovered by scientists in the 1980s, who upon discovering the dramatic loss in ozone cover, set to work determining a primary cause. They found excessive concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the area of concern; CFCs were frequently used as additives in spray cans and refrigerants, but are now banned in most areas of the world

Scientist have been talking about climate change for a long time. Thankfully we have listened to them for the most part.
www.truthorfiction.com...


So do you believe that a climate change hokes was started in the 20s? Because I have to say that whoever was going to benefit from such a hokes back then is dead now. And yet the hokes lives on.