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

[piezoe]

So you are the authority on what's pop science and what's real because you only pay attention to papers that support your bias as a conservative.

Yes, actually, as a real scientist ,I guess I am. But of course I pay attention to the literature in my field, and if the science is good, there is an absence of bias. That's one of the characteristics that separates science, from other human endeavors like social studies. Good science must always be without bias, so good science requires that one stays in touch with their own fallibility and recognizes we are all capable of error.

You gave us a nice reference. Many of the studies reported were done by first rate scientists and some are quite certain in their results, others much less so. But nevertheless this is a treasure trove of valuable information. So thank you. The best papers are the ones that have attempted to include error analysis. I always like to see that.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Carbon taxes seem to be well received in progressive France.

https://www.apnews.com/d3033b920af449b594e66b51890b517b

French protesters angry over fuel taxes clash with police

PARIS (AP) — French police fired tear gas and water cannons to disperse violent demonstrators in Paris on Saturday, as thousands gathered in the capital and beyond and staged road blockades to vent anger against rising fuel taxes.

Thousands of police were deployed nationwide to contain the eighth day of deadly demonstrations that started as protests against tax but morphed into a rebuke of President Emmanuel Macron and the perceived elitism of France’s ruling class. Two people have been killed since Nov. 17 in protest-related tragedies.

“It’s going to trigger a civil war and me, like most other citizens, we’re all ready,” [emphasis mine] said Benjamin Vrignaud, a 21-year-old protester from Chartres.

 

[TJustice]

I read the executive summary.
How is this supporting the idea that man made co2 is causing warming?

What a bunch of nonsensical garbage.

So you are the authority on what's pop science and what's real because you only pay attention to papers that support your bias as a conservative.

Here is an authoritative meta analysis of the subject

SOCCR2 is an authoritative decadal assessment of carbon cycle science across North America, developed by over 200 experts from the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments, national laboratories, universities, private sector, and research institutions.
SOCCR2 is a Sustained Assessment Product of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

https://carbon2018.globalchange.gov/

Tell me if this is pop science or should I go over to HeartlandExxon for the real science?

 

[futurecurrents]

This is too far afield for you to grasp, but I'll try anyway. You generally won't find a scientific publication in what we call the primary literature taking such a simple stand as "denying man made global warming." That is not how science and scientists work. Instead you will find publications exploring, for example, the question of whether the atmosphere's feedback to perturbations is positive or negative. You will find papers exploring the time based phase relationship of CO2 concentration changes to changes in atmospheric temperature. You will find papers exploring the problems and errors associated with trying to measure mean atmospheric temperature. (It is extremely difficult.) You will find papers on improvements in climate modeling. You will find papers on ocean acidification, on geothermal energy release in various parts of the world, etc., etc.

The Hansen Hypothesis, with which you are by now very familiar, requires that any single observation which is not in concordance with the hypothesis be shown to be incorrect in order for the hypothesis to be accepted as correct for at least the time being. A single observation that is generally accepted as correct and is not in concordance with Hansen's hypothesis is enough to cause the entire hypothesis to be rejected by the scientific world. The Hypothesis has, in fact, been rejected by many of the worlds scientists, including those who are experts in climate and atmospheric physics.

What you are reading and hearing about is what we scientists call "pop science" or "Al Gore" science. It is a form of popular pseudo science where everyone pays attention to the observations that support the pop science, but ignore those that don't. When pseudoscience gets blended with politics and a media frenzy, you can have an entirely different sort of phenomenon, but this phenomenon involves a kind of popular public insanity having nothing to do with real science. I would say it is more closely aligned with religion. We have seen this same kind of thing before. In the 20th Century, Eugenics pop science, the Lysenko "Affair," and the "discovery" of "Polywater" would all be good examples of how a kind of pseudo scientific ridiculousness can take hold once it gets promoted by the media and politicians get involved.

Not too far afield for me at all. I have a degree in environmental science. But good attempt at dismissal based on, well, nothing really.

and still, not a single quote from a publishing climate scientist denying or even questioning the basic truth of man made global warming.

lot's of erroneous insubstantial bullshit though


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

Here is your "pop science".

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 138-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the four warmest years being the four most recent years. Credit: NASA/NOAA.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 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.


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

 

[futurecurrents]

Yes, actually, as a real scientist ,I guess I am. But of course I pay attention to the literature in my field, and if the science is good, there is an absence of bias. That's one of the characteristics that separates science, from other human endeavors like social studies. Good science must always be without bias, so good science requires that one stays in touch with their own fallibility and recognizes we are all capable of error.

You gave us a nice reference. Many of the studies reported were done by first rate scientists and some are quite certain in their results, others much less so. But nevertheless this is a treasure trove of valuable information. So thank you. The best papers are the ones that have attempted to include error analysis. I always like to see that.

Funny that you mention real scientists. The consensus among the real climate scientists is 100%. I guess being a "real scientist" oooo that sound soooo impressive, means nothing when speaking outside of their narrow area of expertise.

So is it ignorance, a stroke, working for a libertarian think tank? Which is it with you. I know, you decided forty years ago what your opinion is and you're sticking with it.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Not too far afield for me at all. I have a degree in environmental science. But good attempt at dismissal based on, well, nothing really.

and still, not a single quote from a publishing climate scientist denying or even questioning the basic truth of man made global warming.

lot's of erroneous insubstantial bullshit though


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

Here is your "pop science".

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 138-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the four warmest years being the four most recent years. Credit: NASA/NOAA.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 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.


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

If you understood anything about science, you would understand that your post isn't an argument to pie's post.

 

[futurecurrents]

If you understood anything about science, you would understand that your post isn't an argument to pie's post.

What post? He said nothing. Once again. Not a single fact or link to an authoritative source. In short piehole is completely full of shit.

 

[TJustice]

You have tortured science with that bullshit.

There are over a thousand published studies which run counter to the idea that man made co2 causes warming. I have presented you the link. We have presented you with dozens of more recent studies showing the sun or the tides or water vapor are causing some or all the warming.

Yet you don't have any peer reviewed papers stating man made co2 causes warming.

Its 1000 plus vs 0.

But lets say you accept on 10 percent.
That is 100 to zero.

Not too far afield for me at all. I have a degree in environmental science. But good attempt at dismissal based on, well, nothing really.

and still, not a single quote from a publishing climate scientist denying or even questioning the basic truth of man made global warming.

lot's of erroneous insubstantial bullshit though


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

Here is your "pop science".

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 138-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the four warmest years being the four most recent years. Credit: NASA/NOAA.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 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.


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

 

[piezoe]

Funny that you mention real scientists. The consensus among the real climate scientists is 100%. I guess being a "real scientist" oooo that sound soooo impressive, means nothing when speaking outside of their narrow area of expertise.

So is it ignorance, a stroke, working for a libertarian think tank? Which is it with you. I know, you decided forty years ago what your opinion is and you're sticking with it.

I'll change my opinion depending on the information I have. I can't change the science of course, that's decided by mother nature, which is a just another name for the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. You have acquired misinformation. Why not read more. There is much new information freely available to you. You're making statements that make no sense. For example what does this mean: "The consensus among the real climate scientists is 100%." What consensus are you talking about? If you are just going to tell us the consensus is that the climate is changing, I think you'll be close to correct, I would think there probably is a close to 100% consensus on that!. But what would be the point?

 

[futurecurrents]

I'll change my opinion depending on the information I have. I can't change the science of course, that's decided by mother nature, which is a just another name for the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry.re. There is much new information freely available to you. You're making statements that make no se You have acquired misinformation. Why not read monse. For example what does this mean: "The consensus among the real climate scientists is 100%." What consensus are you talking about? If you are just going to tell us the consensus is that the climate is changing, I think you'll be close to correct, I would think there probably is a close to 100% consensus on that!. But what would be the point?

What consensus are you talking about? I think you'll be close to correct, I would think there probably is a close to 100% consensus on that!. But what would be the point? There is much new information freely available to you. You're making statements that make no sense. You have acquired misinformation. Why not read monse. For example what does this mean:

I'll change my opinion depending on the information I have. I can't change the science of course, that's decided by mother nature, which is a just another name for the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry.re. There is much new information freely available to you. You're making statements that make no se You have acquired misinformation. Why not read monse. For example what does this mean: "The consensus among the real climate scientists is 100%." What consensus are you talking about? If you are just going to tell us the consensus is that the climate is changing, I think you'll be close to correct, I would think there probably is a close to 100% consensus on that!. But what would be the point?

snore.

still, not a single quote from a publishing climate scientist denying or even questioning the basic truth of man made global warming.