Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

jem said:
Your article with the risk guessed by scientists...
I did not see man man co2 in the top 9 risks.

So we can say no qualified scientist thinks agw is an existential risk of greater than 0.03% Or using agw logic we can say no published scientist named AGW as an existential risk.



Overall probability 19%
Molecular nanotechnology weapons 5%
Superintelligent AI 5%
Non-nuclear wars 4%
Engineered pandemic 2%
Nuclear wars 1%
Nanotechnology accident 0.5%
Natural pandemic 0.05%
Nuclear terrorism 0.03%

--

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk
More...


No.......no qualified scientist denies man made global warming and nearly all of them think that it is huge threat.
 
piezoe said:
I got distracted. The post is badly edited as I got timed out when I went back to it. An observation I would make is that the non-scientific public is completely unaware of the controversy that is continuing in the primary literature. I would say that the atmospheric physicists are are now aligned by slight majority against the Hansen hypothesis, while the climatologists and meteorologists are by moderate majority aligned with the hypothesis the extent of agreement is no where near as one sided as the media would have us believe.

A big problem is semantics. I don't know what political genius decided to start referring to AGW as climate change, but that completely muddies the water. We have to decide several different issues ; none are as yet resolved in the opinion of at least a sizable minority of the scientific world.

These are some unresolved issues:

a. Is the temperature changing beyond its expected rate of change globally? Not just in the Northern Hemisphere but globally. Surface measurement says yes; satellite remote sensing says no. This discrepancy must be resolved.

b. If positive feedback is needed for CO2 to cause the catastrophic temperature excursions Hansen predicted would have arrived by now, and the feedback is positive, and hasn't just recently become positive, why didn't the Earth long ago become too hot? (If feedback is positive, any little warming by CO2 will cause a disastrous temperature excursion.) Logic, biosphere stability, and observation requires that the feedback response to a rise in CO2 be negative if CO2 significantly affects surface temperature.

c. CO2 is rising everywhere on the planet, and several regions are very demonstrably getting warmer. Why are a few regions getting demonstrably cooler.

d. CO2 concentration on a long-time scale rises with temperature, there is good correlation which is a necessary condition for CO2 to be the cause of the temperature rise. Looked at in some detail we see a slow long-time rise in CO2 consistent with the industrial revolution and increasing use of fossil fuels, and the correlation with the surface temperature data available in the 1980s is good! This is a good indication that CO2 rise might be causing temperature rise via the greenhouse effect. But when better, time-resolved temperature and CO2 data became available, the temperature record was resolvable into two components: a long, slow monotonic rise in temperature, and riding on top of this was a cyclical temperature variation with a regular and much shorter period that appears to correspond to oceanic surface temperature. The slow monotonic rise is consistent with deeper, oceanic water temperature. Also found, is the same pattern in CO2 atmospheric concentration. If CO2 concentration is driving temperature increase than CO2 concentration must be either in phase with or lead the the temperature cycle, but in fact the phase relationship is the opposite. This data is strongly supportive of Salby's earlier finding that temperature was in fact driving CO2 concentration; not the other way around. These observations taken together are consistent with the earlier, but poorly resolved, correlation of temperature with CO2 rise, and also consistent with both temperature rise being the driver of rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, or alternatively anthropomorphic CO2 being the driver of rising CO2. Although the time resolved temperature and CO2 data is consistent with much of the rise in CO2 concentration being from Anthropomorphic sources, it is inconsistent with anthropomorphic CO2 being the driver of temperature increase. This is a great conundrum that must be resolved.

The battle continues in the primary literature, a battle of which the public and our politicians seem totally unaware. I blame Hansen's unacceptable, and unprofessional behavior for this. He has stooped so low as to write papers and submit them directly to the media as though they were legitimate scientific papers without bothering to go through the peer review process.

I have no problem with a push toward development of alternative energy sources. I do not view the effort directed at lowering CO2 emissions as being particularly bad or wasteful, as it seems good will come out of it in the end. But I hate to see bad science championed in the media.
More...



There is just too much bullshit here to address all at once, which of course is what you are counting on. So let's start with "a" above

you said....

"Is the temperature changing beyond its expected rate of change globally? Not just in the Northern Hemisphere but globally. Surface measurement says yes; satellite remote sensing says no. This discrepancy must be resolved."


The "discrepancy" has been resolved long ago. Perhaps you have not been paying attention or don't understand the science involved.

The lie is that satellite data and surface temp data don't match. Not only do they match, but the implication of this "question" is also a lie: that this or that little quibble about one little aspect or another of the vast corpus of data assembled by climate scientists proves that climate science isn't "real" science.

Only someone with no understanding of science would think that this chipping at the edges proves anything--but that would describe over half the voters, in line with P.T. Barnum's famous principle "There's one born every minute."

And of course if climate science isn't "real" science, it's too squishy to base policy on, so there's no reason to regulate the fossil fuel industry, nor to reduce its primo place at the taxpayer trough, nor to provide government support for alternate energy sources.

In fact the satellite data comports with ground data once you factor in a bunch of things needed to made sense of the raw readings, including:
1. Switching from MSU to AMSU
2. Orbital decay
3. Instrument body effectd
4. Diurnal drift
5. Sea ice and summer melt ponds
6. Stratospheric biasing
7. T2 vs. TLT

"Satellite measurements do show warming in the Tropsphere when a cooling bias from the Stratosphere is removed. Warming trends agree well with surface temperatures and model predictions except near the Poles. Differences between various analyses are largely due to analysis techniques and compensations for satellite data issues."

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

***************************


So.... strike one .
 
Last edited:
Hey argue with that article... show us some of the scientists not cnn or other bullshitters but scientists themselves showing us the science. Not them saying the IPCC says_____ but showing us real science. Lets see the science they rely upon. Surely you have some of those types of links to real science showing showing man made co2 causes warming?

Not that co2 can cause warming but that man made co2 is causing warming. Til you do that there is essential no risk from man made co2 that can be measured. hence I am sure part of the reason it did not make the list.


futurecurrents said:
No.......no qualified scientist denies man made global warming and nearly all of them think that it is huge threat.
More...
 
Last edited:
The Dead Sea is drying out
By Benazir Wehelie, Special to CNN

Story highlights
  • The Dead Sea is shrinking, and humans are largely to blame
  • Israel and Jordan signed a $900 million deal to stabilize the popular salt lake

(CNN)Something's happening at the lowest point on our planet, some 1,388 feet below sea level.

The Dead Sea, a salt lake nestled by Israel, Jordan and the West Bank, is shrinking at an alarming rate -- about 3.3 feet per year, according to the environmentalist group EcoPeace Middle East. And human actions are largely to blame.

"It's not just like one country is punishing the Dead Sea; it's more like the whole region," said photographer Moritz Küstner, who visited the area in February to work on his series "The Dying Dead Sea."...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/20/travel/cnnphotos-dead-sea-dying/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool
 
could it be because human action... diverting its water supplies away.
Oh that is what the article says...

were you trying to blame agw?
why did you bold and increase the size of the letters.

Now I would expect a troll to pretend they were not trying to blame agw.
Are you going to be a troll nitro?



nitro said:
The Dead Sea is drying out
By Benazir Wehelie, Special to CNN

Story highlights
  • The Dead Sea is shrinking, and humans are largely to blame
  • Israel and Jordan signed a $900 million deal to stabilize the popular salt lake

(CNN)Something's happening at the lowest point on our planet, some 1,388 feet below sea level.

The Dead Sea, a salt lake nestled by Israel, Jordan and the West Bank, is shrinking at an alarming rate -- about 3.3 feet per year, according to the environmentalist group EcoPeace Middle East. And human actions are largely to blame.

"It's not just like one country is punishing the Dead Sea; it's more like the whole region," said photographer Moritz Küstner, who visited the area in February to work on his series "The Dying Dead Sea."...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/20/travel/cnnphotos-dead-sea-dying/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool
More...
 
futurecurrents said:
In fact the satellite data comports with ground data once you factor in a bunch of things needed to made sense of the raw readings, including:
1. Switching from MSU to AMSU
2. Orbital decay
3. Instrument body effectd
4. Diurnal drift
5. Sea ice and summer melt ponds
6. Stratospheric biasing
7. T2 vs. TLT

"Satellite measurements do show warming in the Tropsphere when a cooling bias from the Stratosphere is removed. Warming trends agree well with surface temperatures and model predictions except near the Poles. Differences between various analyses are largely due to analysis techniques and compensations for satellite data issues."

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

***************************
More...

So it all works out once you 'adjust' the satellite numbers to conform to the ground temp numbers, which themselves have also been 'adjusted' to show global warming.

LOL

There are more red flags in their studies than a parade in Moscow.

Only an idiot believes this bullshit.
 
fhl said:
So it all works out once you 'adjust' the satellite numbers to conform to the ground temp numbers, which themselves have also been 'adjusted' to show global warming.

Only an idiot believes this bullshit.
More...

Walter Kaufmann and others said much the same about Special Relativity. They were physicists. You're not. Like everyone else, you're only an idiot.
 
fhl said:
Everyone else would certainly include you or it wouldn't be everyone. So why should I pay any attention to what an idiot like you says?
More...
....because you're an idiot.
The principles of AGW like Special Relativity is the science and Einstein wasn't the idiot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top