Climate and Weather

[Slobodan]

Many of these discussions in the past have looped around the same way -- the climate denial camp presents some supposed support for their view that turns out on closer examination not to be what they claim. Interestingly, almost all of these examples presented by the deniers who complain about publication restrictions end up in good-paying positions on foundations that let them publish what they want. The latest example is Dr. Clauser, who is now on the board of the CO2 Coalition. Those interested can find out more about that group here --

CO2 Coalition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you name 1 person here that's denied climate change? Or whatever camp it is you're babbling about?

Should I research Wikipedia articles by climatologist Bill Nye?

 

[espola]

Can you name 1 person here that's denied climate change? Or whatever camp it is you're babbling about?

Should I research Wikipedia articles by climatologist Bill Nye?

Perhaps I should have been more clear -- deniers of the impact of human activities on the obvious climate change,

Would you guys like to take roll call now?

 

[Desert Hound]

the obvious climate change

The climate has always changed.

The way you post it sounds like you expect it to be a constant.

It has always changed. The theory has to prove why this time it isn't a natural cycle.

It also has to prove why higher temps would be bad when we know temps in the past have been far higher and everything was fine.

I know those are deep subjects for you espola. Post another temp chart to prove the climate is changing...which we pretty much all know is the norm.

 

[Desert Hound]

obvious climate change

By the way the videos I posted which you and dad won't watch are not to say hey the theory is bs. Rather they point out there are many questions not resolved...and some aspects are actually wrong.

But as I always argue one is better informed by being aware and the various points of view rather than blindly accepting the gov position.

 

[espola]

I would recommend dad and espola...and to be honest everyone take a look at this video.

Richard Lindzen well respected climatologist from MIT.

He explains a lot of the problems with the manmade global warming theory.

I suspect neither dad or espola will watch this or the other video. Info that cuts against what they believe. This one is more interesting vs the first.

Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.

Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters (Published 2012)

In recent years, climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.

www.nytimes.com

 

[espola]

The climate has always changed.

The way you post it sounds like you expect it to be a constant.

It has always changed. The theory has to prove why this time it isn't a natural cycle.

It also has to prove why higher temps would be bad when we know temps in the past have been far higher and everything was fine.

I know those are deep subjects for you espola. Post another temp chart to prove the climate is changing...which we pretty much all know is the norm.

"Everything was fine" is an interesting observation. Please provide more details that led to that judgment.

 

[dad4]

Can you name 1 person here that's denied climate change?

See below

The climate has always changed.

The way you post it sounds like you expect it to be a constant.

It has always changed. The theory has to prove why this time it isn't a natural cycle.

It also has to prove why higher temps would be bad when we know temps in the past have been far higher and everything was fine.

I know those are deep subjects for you espola. Post another temp chart to prove the climate is changing...which we pretty much all know is the norm.

That is an example of someone
1: denying that this climate change is different from past climate change.
2: denying the link between industrial CO2 emissions and climate change.

Clear enough?

 

[Desert Hound]

Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.

Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters (Published 2012)

In recent years, climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.

www.nytimes.com

Yeah he agrees there is global warming. Thanks for realizing that days later.his argument is we are better off spending money now on the billions that don't have clean water and electricity. He also feels that humans will adapt.

So...thanks for seeing what he says.

 

[whatithink]

 

[Desert Hound]

Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.

Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters (Published 2012)

In recent years, climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.

www.nytimes.com

And watch the video and see what else he says.

 

[Desert Hound]

See below

I accept the climate changes. So your statement is false. You don't read well or understand a discussion.

That is an example of someone
1: denying that this climate change is different from past climate change.
2: denying the link between industrial CO2 emissions and climate change.

And again you accept a theory as fact.

Your ability to understand a discussion is weak at best

 

[espola]

Yeah he agrees there is global warming. Thanks for realizing that days later.his argument is we are better off spending money now on the billions that don't have clean water and electricity. He also feels that humans will adapt.

So...thanks for seeing what he says.

His last professional work on climate issues was over 10 years ago. In that interval, some of his predictions about the effects of clouds possibly counteracting the effect of CO2 greenhouse warming have been shown to be false. That's all covered in the NY Times article I linked.

 

[Desert Hound]

That is an example of someone
1: denying that this climate change is different from past climate change.

And again to prove it is different from every time before is a high bar.

That is why the THEORY is unproven.

You believe this time warming is catastrophic despite the fact the earth has been substantially warmer in the past. The theory is still just that.

 

[espola]

I accept the climate changes. So your statement is false. You don't read well or understand a discussion.

And again you accept a theory as fact.

Your ability to understand a discussion is weak at best

Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the concept of a "theory".

Your persistence in the face of contradiction is amusing. Please continue.

 

[Desert Hound]

That is an example of someone
1: denying that this climate change is different from past climate change.

And again to prove it is different from every time before is a high bar.

That is why the THEORY is unproven.

You believe this time warming is catastrophic despite the fact the earth has been substantially warmer in the past. The theory is still just that.

 

[Desert Hound]

Clear enough

So what have you read that is proven that convinces you a warmer plant is catastrophic?

 

[Desert Hound]

His last professional work on climate issues was over 10 years ago. In that interval, some of his predictions about the effects of clouds possibly counteracting the effect of CO2 greenhouse warming have been shown to be false. That's all covered in the NY Times article I linked.

He is still involved.

But why do you think the most recent Nobel prize winner in physics also believes this is overblown?

Or why is the former provost at cal tech wrong?

 

[espola]

And watch the video and see what else he says.

He has a lot of opinions that I am sure you like. But there are some obvious boners in there -- for example, he gets the methane argument backward. The intent of methane limitation regulations is not to eliminate the current methane content in the atmosphere (which he points out correctly would have only negligible effect), the intent is to keep methane concentration from rising rapidly similar to the way that the CO2 concentration is rising.

 

[Desert Hound]

His last professional work on climate issues was over 10 years ago. In that interval, some of his predictions about the effects

You know he was a big contributor to the 3rd IPCC report.

He is one of the leaders in the field

 

[espola]

He is still involved.

But why do you think the most recent Nobel prize winner in physics also believes this is overblown?

Or why is the former provost at cal tech wrong?

Clauser's Nobel Prize had nothing to do with climate or atmospheric physics. It was awarded for (quoting the Prize announcement) "experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science".

 

[espola]

You know he was a big contributor to the 3rd IPCC report.

He is one of the leaders in the field

Did you read the NY Times article? His "leadership" was tarnished near the end of his career by mistaken predictions that were quickly and easily debunked by many other climatologists.