I don't begin with certainties.
Here's the problem. You use sources with (even) self-proclaimed bias, right wing think tanks, and conspiracy fueled climate deniers. I try to use sources that are as neutral as I can reasonably find - AI, Wikis etc. And proper
*climate* scientists.It's pretty much the first rule of secondary research - question your source.
I didn't think it was that bad. Some quite considered analysis, insofar as I understand the science. But overemphasised CO2, and underemphasised other variables.
Its main purpose was, I feel, to underpin accelerated investment in the use and extraction of fossil fuels, rather than an outright denial of anthropogenic climate change.
"Our children wont know what snow is"
There are more polar bears now than when Al Gore was born. It turns out that not shooting them is far far more important than climate change
Arctic ice us fairly stable as is Greenland and Antarctic ice.
Some European glaciers have receded - to show the stumps of trees that grew there a few thousand years ago when it was much warmer.
Coral reefs are doing fine
Whatever the facts are it is clear that the current narrative owes little to science and little to facts but an awful lot to politics and corporate marketing.
Agree with that bit. Whatever's causing it - social media, influencers, multi-billionaires, education, nature of democracy, sociopath despots - it's certainly a weird time for truth.
The climate believers never have cherry-picked data, of course, like the single Siberian bristlecone pine tree that was the only one used from the batch of about 40 that were examined, and used to ‘prove’ global warming existed.
OFFS!
You haven’t mentioned a single source that wasn’t biased towards the current climate narrative!
We questioned your source, and you didn’t like it, and have totally failed to provide a reasoned response!
For example, you never questioned NASA’s claim that the potent greenhouse gas aka water vapour both acted as a GHG except when it didn’t, and ‘amplified’ the effect of other GHGs except when it didn’t.
You are pushing the case of “Don’t do as I do, do as I say!”. And it doesn’t work.
Oh, the irony...
Oh, the irony....
It is not what is there that is the problem, it is what is missing.
Firstly it claims "because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, it is not a direct cause of climate change" Yet water vapour has always existed in our atmosphere, it reflects back (thus global warming) not only the entire frequency range that CO2 is blamed for, but other frequencies too. There is normally far more water vapour in the atmosphere than there is CO2, even without warming oceans (which are largely warmed and cooled by changes in ocean currents), so even if the paltry 400 parts per million doubles, it would be insignificant against the effect of water vapour. The absent feature is the list of frequencies reflected by CO2 and water vapour, which would prove that CO2 can't be the culprit.
The problem is also that warmer oceans have many causes. There is no mention of: We have recently been treated to the phenomenon of many planets having their orbits in such a position that half a dozen of them could be viewed at the same time. That is a far greater gravitational pull all in one direction relative to the Earth and it will have made some difference to the eccentricity of the Earths orbit, which will have an effect on the level of insolation the Earth receives.
In the long term view of the Earth's climate, we are currently in a cool period, and in common with other cool periods in the past, it is inevitably going to warm up a bit. The current rate of change in global temperatures is closely following the warming profile seen 8000 years ago, so about the time that mankind progressed from hunter gatherers to an agricultural base. That would not have caused the warming seen then so there is no reason to suppose that mankind is causing it now. Ancient history proves that, but the AGW baseline only goes back about
200 years so isn't realistic.CO2 production is taxable. Water vapour isn't. Which do you think suits Governments best to decry?
You beat me to it.
My thought contained two Ls and they bounce.
You need to do some research on how the AI made available to the public works.
You sign into it, so it fetches its profile of you. From that profile it identifies what you are interested in, and from the follow up questions you ask it has a good idea of what your preferences are.
The people who created the AI systems want them to be well used because that gives research evidence of how to improve the produce. So there is a reward process built in. The AI system selects from its knowledge base those facts that you will not disagree with. You get facts, but not all the facts, just those that will encourage you to continue to use AI and provide AI input and therefore the designer's feedback.
In common parlance, AI is a con artist telling you what you want to hear. So of course you think it is spot on. It was chosen to be that to you. If someone with the opposite opinion to you asked the same question, a different set of facts would have been delivered.
I said in my other lengthy criticism of the NASA page, the thing that is missing is the frequencies of the radiation that is reflected back by greenhouse gases. CO2 has a proven range. Water vapour has a proven range which covers ALL the frequencies that CO2 reflects and also some others. Water vapour is far more plentiful than CO2 so the effect of CO2 on global warming is close to nil. A bot over the poles and over Siberia in winter is about it. It therefore cannot possibly be raising water temperature because its effect is insignificant. Thus any increase in CO2, however caused (and volcanoes produce far more than mankind ever can) just encourages plant growth.
Of course that is happening. Adults have been dumping guilt on them, and they haven't got the worldly experience to recognise it as rubbish.
OK then.
These are funded studies, peer reviewed an published.
One "proved" that global warming would make Indian monsoons wetter. Another one "proved" that global warming would make Indian monsoons drier.
Apart from the con trick of saying, whatever happens, that it must be global warming because it was predicted, a better example of "Heads I win, Tails you lose" it is difficult to imagine.
There is a published list of 30 of these contradictory pairs. All published and reviewed by proper climate scientists.
The common factor is that provided a scientist doesn't debunk the AGW myth their work will be published. That makes it politics, not science.
The scientific method is to start with a hypothesis and then see if it is repeatable, see if there are any conditions which it doesn't cater for, and if it survives all that then the hypothesis will do for now. By refusing to fund research that will test the hypothesis, what is left is political belief.
As for repeatable, remember that "hockey stick" graph. A scientist got some time on the model, and he did prove it was repeatable. It didn't matter what input he used, even complete gibberish values or random numbers, he got the identical graph out. There is a feedback loop flaw in the logic. Yet that is the graph that everyone quotes as proof of mankind being to blame.
Which? Where? If you let me know I'll take a look.
Well no, technically we are in a warm bit of an ice age.
First of all, I have already explained elsewhere in this thread why AI is designed to please the user so it will never be neutral.
I have found the list and then hunted the source papers or publications, but I got fed up with the amount of time it was taking up. So here is the full list in alphabetical order of subject, and the partial attributions. If you want the rest you can hunt for them yourself.
Amazon dry season greener - Geophysical Research Letters 22 March 2006 Amazon dry season browner - Geophysical Research Letters 5 March 2010
Avalanches may increase - The Royal Society 19 April 2010 Avalanches may decrease – Annals of Glaciology 14 Sept 2017
Bird migrations longer - Journal of Biogeography 19 March 2009 Bird migrations shorter - Global Change Biology 15 January 2009
Boreal forest fires may increase - Ecological Biology May 1995 Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing - Journal of Vegetation Science Aug 1998
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer - Journal of Geophysical Research 17 Sept 2009 Chinese locusts swarm when cooler - National Academy of Sciences 16 March 2007
Columbia spotted frogs decline - National Academy of Sciences 15 Jan 2008 Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world - National Academy of Sciences 6 April 2010
Coral island atolls to sink - Global and Planetary Change Sept 2006 Coral island atolls to rise - Global and Planetary Change 3 June 2010
Earth’s rotation to slow down - Geophysical Research Letters 12 April 2002 Earth’s rotation to speed up - Geophysical Research Letters 28 March 2007
East Africa to get less rain East Africa to get more rain
Great Lakes less snow Great Lakes more snow
Gulf stream slows down Gulf stream speeds up a little
Indian monsoons to be drier - American Meteorological Society 15 May 2006 Indian monsoons to be wetter - Working Group 1 of Climate Change 2007
Indian rice yields to decrease Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2
Leaf area index reduced [1990s] Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]
Malaria may increase Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase Malaria in Burundi to decrease
North Atlantic cod to decline North Atlantic cod to thrive
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease
North Atlantic Ocean less salty North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow
Plant methane emissions significant Plant methane emissions insignificant
Plants move uphill Plants move downhill
Sahel to get less rain Sahel to get more rain Sahel may get more or less rain
San Francisco less foggy San Francisco more foggy
Sea level rise accelerated Sea level rise decelerated
Soil moisture less Soil moisture more
Squids get smaller Squids get larger
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
UK may get more droughts UK may get more rain
Wind speed to go up Wind speed slows down Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer Winters maybe colder
I think we are talking about the same thing with different timelines. There have been a series of ice ages and warm periods between and my point of view was based on a base temperature where the polar ice caps are not permanent.
It is only terminology after all. I think that looking at the historic pattern of warm and cool cycles we are due to get a bit warmer than we are now and then it will cool off again.
The worrying bit (that will be several generations in the future so not relevant to us) is the pattern that each Ice Age was preceded by 2-3 centuries of warmer than average temperatures.
It will never be neutral. I don't know enough about the various algorithms and effects to form an opinion about its overall usefulness, or who it pleases. Just that it suits me from time to time.
OK, thanks. Just to be clear:
Is that about right? TBH I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. And a lot of those titles don't look to me like journal article titles. But I haven't looked yet - if you could just confirm the point you're making, and the nature of the evidence to support it. Then I'll take a look.
The only thing we know about climate is we cant predict it.
Only a fool or a knave would claim they could
Of course it suits you. It was DESIGNED to do precisely that.
As a justification for anything you say, it invalidates your point of view for that reason.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required