‘Like a Terror Movie’: How Climate Change Will Cause More Simultaneous Disasters

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

LOL, so Cons will acknowledge climate change the moment they learn to make a buck off it, I mean the corporations making money off it while you guys give them free PR with your spam. Must be nice to have a triggered cult to do your bidding on every issue because the immigrants are coming to take ya jerbs and woives.

Al Gore has learned to make a buck or two off of “climate change”, himself. Check out his movies and the companies he is involved with. Other than remote areas, solar and wind are much more expensive than fossil fuels overall when maintenance, cost of money, depreciation, land, and installation are counted in costs. Al gore has business interests in “green” energy companies.

Once again, a Leftist points the finger at an innocent party when they are guilty of the crime they are accusing the other side with. Oh, and at all the free PR the Useful Idiots on the Left give Al Gore and his companies.

 

[futurecurrents]

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers


A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus

Dana Nuccitelli

Tue 25 Aug 2015 06.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 12.30 EST

Shares
41,239
Comments
1,364

Galileo demonstrating his astronomical theories. Climate contrarians have virtually nothing in common with Galileo. Photograph: Tarker/Tarker/Corbis
Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.

To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature?



This particular argument also displays a clear lack of plausible physics, which was another common theme we identified among contrarian climate research. In another example, Ferenc Miskolczi argued in 2007 and 2010 papers that the greenhouse effect has become saturated, but as I also discuss in my book, the ‘saturated greenhouse effect’ myth was debunked in the early 20th century. As we note in the supplementary material to our paper, Miskolczi left out some important known physics in order to revive this century-old myth.

 

[futurecurrents]

Moron... just click on the links... many are published climate scientists.

But here at ET these are a few of the published climate scientists whose work you have discussed (not in a civil manner) in the past. This proves you are lying and not just ignorant.

Niv Shaviv... is one of Piezoes favorites. He has been discussed with you and he is published....

Ole Humlum - wrote the seminal peer reviewed paper which pretty much guts your theory. His paper shows us all that CO2 levels trail ocean warming and cooling.

John Christy works for NASA and is famous for his Satellite Temperature work for NASA.

• 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.[150][151][152]

David Legates is also published in peer reviewed papers.
He destroyed your Climate consensus fraud paper by cook.

There are others who are published.

If I recall Reid Bryson is one of the most cited climate scientists in literature.

Tim Paterson is another...

Patterson has made more than 300 scholarly contributions, including over 180 peer-reviewed journal publications and book chapters.[4] Patterson is also an international lecturer and media commentator, primarily contributing to increasing public awareness of environmental issues. He co-founded and served as Executive Editor (1997-2000) of Palaeontologia Electronica (PE).[5] Palaeontologia Electronica covers all aspects of palaeontology, and is the world's longest running open-access, peer-reviewed electronic journal. He also previously served as Associate Editor for the Journal of Foraminiferal Research (1995-2008),[6] and the journal Micropaleontology (1990-1997).[7]

Patterson works on a wide array of research subjects, most of which are based on analysis of marine and lake sediments to reconstruct past environments.[8] He uses many techniques to understand the history of marine and lake environments from the perspective of: 1) the influence of climate variability on aquatic ecosystem services (AES); 2) the impact of degradation resulting from human activities on AES, and 3) the degree to which remediation and mitigation efforts are successful in improving AES. He has developed technologies that permit extraction of very high-resolution paleoenvironmental records, and uses time series analysis techniques to recognize trends and cycles in the climate record. Other research focuses on assessing the impact of nutrient loading and road salt contamination on lake environments. He is also engaged in research on tracking the influence of climate change on metal transport in northern lakes and has partnered with indigenous peoples of the Northwest Territories to develop research tools to calibrate western scientific reconstructions of past climate against the oral histories that are provided by First Nations communities.[9]

You really can't fucking read can you.

from a publishing climate scientist denying man made global warming

The consensus is 100% among the experts.


Non of the industry whores and fools you listed deny that man made global warming is true.

It's not 97%, it's 100% consensus.

 

[TJustice]

You lying piece of garbage fraud currents.

page after page you wrote from a publishing climate scientists.
So we gave you published climate scientists.
So now you want to ad... who is not a paid whore.

You lying troll.


You have not produced a single peer reviewed paper ever that has stated man made co2 is causing warming that was not based on now models and projections.
At the moment there is no science stating man made co2 is causing warming because our system is very complex and it has natural feedbacks. In fact co2 even has cooling properties. It acts as a shield from the suns warming rays and a blanket keeping some warming.

Now one has shown the net impact of man made co2 is significant or that it is even positive in peer reviewed science. Its speculation.

Prove I am lying an produce some peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming.

We have given you tons of studies saying temperature change is influenced by natural causes like the sun, the tides and water vapor.

You really can't fucking read can you.

from a publishing climate scientist denying man made global warming

The consensus is 100% among the experts.


Non of the industry whores and fools you listed deny that man made global warming is true.

It's not 97%, it's 100% consensus.

 

[futurecurrents]

You lying piece of garbage fraud currents.

page after page you wrote from a publishing climate scientists.
So we gave you published climate scientists.
So now you want to ad... who is not a paid whore.

You lying troll.


You have not produced a single peer reviewed paper ever that has stated man made co2 is causing warming that was not based on now models and projections.
At the moment there is no science stating man made co2 is causing warming because our system is very complex and it has natural feedbacks. In fact co2 even has cooling properties. It acts as a shield from the suns warming rays and a blanket keeping some warming.

Now one has shown the net impact of man made co2 is significant or that it is even positive in peer reviewed science. Its speculation.

Prove I am lying an produce some peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming.

We have given you tons of studies saying temperature change is influenced by natural causes like the sun, the tides and water vapor.

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

Quote or paper summary or even a reputable news source saying a publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 99 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

The consensus is 100% among the experts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Non of the industry whores and fools you listed deny that man made global warming is true.

It's not 99%, it's 100% consensus among the expert climatologists.

Oh, and shut the fuck up crazy boy. Take your meds.

 

[piezoe]

I have at least twice posted the findings from the Meteorologists Bulletin Survey of opinions on AGW. Here is yet another survey: I just post the abstract and title. You can go to the entire paper if interested. It is available free as a PDF file from Environ. Res. Lett.

Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp)
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Title: Quantifying the consensus on
anthropogenic global warming in the
scientific literature
(Sorry I omitted the long list of authors. formatting to cumbersome to handle)

Received 18 January 2013Accepted for publication 22 April 2013
Published 15 May 2013Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024
Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research​

The main point I would call to your attention to is that the bulk of papers ~ two-thirds take no position with regard to global warming. It is only a minority of papers, ~one-third, that endorse AGW or question, or reject it outright. The later two categories being nearly insignificant within this one-third of papers. Those papers endorsing AGW, which may be accurately said to be equivalent to accepting the Hansen Hypothesis as correct, are divided in their estimates, if they give any, of how significant they believe AGW is. It is from this minority of papers that the 97 % figure, so often seen, comes from. Overall, among these 11,944 climate abstracts published between 1991 and 2011 approximately one-third accepted the Hansen hypothesis as contributing to warming and a large majority, two- thirds, took no position. Among those two thirds, a surprising number of papers reported findings that are inconsistent with the Hansen Hypothesis or invalidate the assumption inherent to the models on which the verity of the Hansen hypothesis depends. There is a reason why researchers who find results inconsistent with Hansen's Hypothesis prevaricate. They don't want to find themselves on the wrong side of politics which could negatively affect their funding, or so they believe. They prefer to error on the side of caution. Can you blame them?

Sadly the science has become inextricably intertwined with emotions, politics, and money interests. On the one hand we are now in the realm of religion among an unsuspecting lay public, and on the other hand our course is being dictated wounded egos, commercial concerns and the quest for profits. The science has hardly any chance in such an atmosphere. But in the end of course, mother nature will prevail, she always does.

 

[futurecurrents]

You must have the same brain damage that jem has. You DO know that Tjustice is jem right? He was banned for continually lying. You're next.

No publishing climate scientist on earth denies man made global warming.

And when directly asked, 97% or more agree that it is true.

But you have no interest in the truth on this matter for some strange reason or don't understand some very simple basic physics. it could be brain damage though. Sorry if that's the case.

But judging by the who's who parade of discredited fools and industry whores and liars that you trot out as your experts, I'm guessing that you are one of them.

And I keep telling you, there is no such thing as the Hansen hypothesis. It's called the greenhouse effect and climate science. But I understand that one way to disinform is to ad hom it and thereby diminish it. You are following your overlord's directions well, scumbag.

I have at least twice posted the findings from the Meteorologists Bulletin Survey of opinions on AGW. Here is yet another survey: I just post the abstract and title. You can go to the entire paper if interested. It is available free as a PDF file from Environ. Res. Lett.

Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp)
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Title: Quantifying the consensus on
anthropogenic global warming in the
scientific literature
(Sorry I omitted the long list of authors. formatting to cumbersome to handle)

Received 18 January 2013Accepted for publication 22 April 2013
Published 15 May 2013Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024
Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research​

The main point I would call to your attention to is that the bulk of papers ~ two-thirds take no position with regard to global warming. It is only a minority of papers, ~one-third, that endorse AGW or question, or reject it outright. The later two categories being nearly insignificant within this one-third of papers. Those papers endorsing AGW, which may be accurately said to be equivalent to accepting the Hansen Hypothesis as correct, are divided in their estimates, if they give any, of how significant they believe AGW is. It is from this minority of papers that the 97 % figure, so often seen, comes from. Overall, among these 11,944 climate abstracts published between 1991 and 2011 approximately one-third accepted the Hansen hypothesis as contributing to warming and a large majority, two- thirds, took no position. Among those two thirds, a surprising number of papers reported findings that are inconsistent with the Hansen Hypothesis or invalidate the assumption inherent to the models on which the verity of the Hansen hypothesis depends. There is a reason why researchers who find results inconsistent with Hansen's Hypothesis prevaricate. They don't want to find themselves on the wrong side of politics which could negatively affect their funding, or so they believe. They prefer to error on the side of caution. Can you blame them?

Sadly the science has become inextricably intertwined with emotions, politics, and money interests. On the one hand we are now in the realm of religion among an unsuspecting lay public, and on the other hand our course is being dictated wounded egos, commercial concerns and the quest for profits. The science has hardly any chance in such an atmosphere. But in the end of course, mother nature will prevail, she always does.

 

[piezoe]

He was banned for continually lying.

I don't believe that's true. Everyone knows TJustice is jem. We don't know why he changed his pseudonym.

No publishing climate scientist on earth denies man made global warming.

This statement, as you obviously know by now, is simply untrue. I gave you a reference to an entire issue of Energy & Environment -- a peer reviewed Primary Journal -- devoted to papers by climate scientists who question the validity of the Hansen Hypothesis,* and based on their research, some of these authors do express the opinion, in one way or another, that man is not contributing significantly to global warming compared to other factors. You continue to confuse global warming with the Hansen hypothesis. Scientifically, these are separate issues. Incidentally, that particular issue of Energy & Environment I called your attention to is available free of charge if you are willing to read it as a PDF on line. If you want a hard copy of any of the papers in it, it will cost $36.00.

If you insist on making these obviously false statements over and over you will certainly ruin your credibility, if you haven't already. I would advise against that.

______________________
*One of these authors , Miskolczi -- whose English alphabet name I often misspell -- was a Ph.D. 'climate scientist' in what was Hansen's group at GISS! It is Miskolczi's opinion that the main mechanism by which absorbed surface energy is transferred to the atmosphere is thermal rather than radiative, that water vapor is the only significant greenhouse gas, and that changes in albedo are a major contributor to climate change. He also is convinced, as am I, that the Earth's atmosphere responds to temperature perturbations by countering them rather than by amplifying them (i.e., negative rather than positive feedback). None of these views expressed by Mislolczi based on his research are compatible with Hansen's hypothesis!

 

[piezoe]

No publishing climate scientist on earth denies man made global warming.

This is not a paper denying man made global warming, sorry about that. Instead, it is a paper showing that one can not show any affect from rising CO2 on temperature using the current climate models, because, in the words of the author,

"The results derived from climate simulations that use the radiative forcing approach may be of limited academic interest in assessing model performance. However, such results are invalid and have no relationship to the physical reality of the Earth’s climate."​

I have copied and pasted below for your benefit the last three paragraphs in this paper which I just finished reading. (underlining is mine.)

A NULL HYPOTHESIS FOR CO2

Roy Clark, Ph.D.
See Pgs 171-200, Ener & Environ 20(4) (2010)
"...
However, in the mid 1980’s, a slight increase in the ‘average’ meteorological surface air temperature was found.(8) This was immediately linked by empirical speculation to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 concentration. It was assumed that a 1 W.m−2 increase in downward LWIR flux due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration produced an increase in meteorological surface air temperature of 2/3 C. (10) Water vapor feedback effects were invoked to explain model inaccuracies.
These feedback assumptions have now been shown to be incorrect.33 The change in the Kirchoff exchange flux was converted into an empirical ‘radiative forcing constant’. This ‘calibration factor’ was then applied to other greenhouse gases such as methane and even to aerosols. The ‘radiative forcing constants’ used in climate simulation models have no physical meaning. The results derived from climate simulations that use the radiative forcing approach may be of limited academic interest in assessing model performance. However, such results are invalid and have no relationship to the physical reality of the Earth’s climate.(34) Radiative forcing by CO2 is, by definition a self-fulfilling prophesy, since the outcome is predetermined by the empirical modeling assumptions.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans. Similarly, the changes in land surface temperatures produced by this flux increase are too small to detect in measured diurnal and seasonal surface temperature variations. Furthermore, a 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration is not detectable in the meteorological surface temperature record. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing and the ‘prediction’ of meteorological surface temperature in climate simulation are invalid. Based on these arguments, a null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed:

It is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any

change to the Earth’s climate, at least since the current composition of the

atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago. "

 

[futurecurrents]

This is not a paper denying man made global warming, sorry about that. Instead, it is a paper showing that one can not show any affect from rising CO2 on temperature using the current climate models, because, in the words of the author,
"The results derived from climate simulations that use the radiative forcing approach may be of limited academic
interest in assessing model performance. However, such results are invalid and have no relationship to the physical reality of the Earth’s climate.

I have copied the last three paragraphs in this paper which I just finished reading.

A NULL HYPOTHESIS FOR CO2

Roy Clark, Ph.D.
See Pgs 171-200, Ener & Environ 20(4) (2010)

However, in the mid 1980’s, a slight increase in the ‘average’ meteorological

surface air temperature was found.8 This was immediately linked by empirical

speculation to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 concentration. It was assumed that

a 1 W.m−2 increase in downward LWIR flux due to an increase in atmospheric CO2

concentration produced an increase in meteorological surface air temperature of

2/3 C.10 Water vapor feedback effects were invoked to explain model inaccuracies.

These feedback assumptions have now been shown to be incorrect.33 The change in

the Kirchoff exchange flux was converted into an empirical ‘radiative forcing

constant’. This ‘calibration factor’ was then applied to other greenhouse gases such

as methane and even to aerosols. The ‘radiative forcing constants’ used in climate

simulation models have no physical meaning. The results derived from climate

simulations that use the radiative forcing approach may be of limited academic

interest in assessing model performance. However, such results are invalid and have

no relationship to the physical reality of the Earth’s climate.34 Radiative forcing by

CO2 is, by definition a self-fulfilling prophesy, since the outcome is predetermined

by the empirical modeling assumptions.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR flux through the

ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean

surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase

in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans. Similarly, the

changes in land surface temperatures produced by this flux increase are too small to

detect in measured diurnal and seasonal surface temperature variations.

Furthermore, a 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration is not detectable in the

meteorological surface temperature record. The assumptions underlying the use of

radiative forcing and the ‘prediction’ of meteorological surface temperature in

climate simulation are invalid. Based on these arguments, a null hypothesis for CO2

is proposed:

It is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any

change to the Earth’s climate, at least since the current composition of the

atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

Oh this should be fun. Let's Google Dr (oooo that sounds impressive) Roy Clark

Roy Linwood Clark (April 15, 1933 – November 15, 2018) was an American singer and musician. He is best known for having hosted Hee Haw, a nationally televised country variety show, from 1969 to 1997. Clark was an important and influential figure in country music, both as a performer and helping to popularize the genre.

next entry

Dr. Roy Clark is an obstetrician-gynecologist in Irwin, Pennsylvania. He received his medical degree from University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry and has been in practice for more than 20 years. Dr. Clark accepts several types of health insurances.

hmmmmmmmm

Maybe Lucy Clark?

maybe you can help me out piehole. Even for you this one is obscure and apparently not a publishing climate scientist. I do expect that like the others you trotted out, that he - like you - works for a libertarian think tank and gets paid to spread disinformation and lies about climate science.



Needless to say, his statement in bold is obviously absurd and completely wrong based on theory and empirical evidence which is why no publishing climate scientist on earth agrees with him.

So why are you lying so much?