Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
The future can only be predicted, not observed
(at which point it becomes history).
... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven
I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
change) here ... :-)
Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven.
Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years.
Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from
adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the
quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The
British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix
them at the next major review.
No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as
the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a
strength as it shows willingness to improve.
You will find more info at
Do you have any sources that aren't partisan? Plus, blogs aren't science.
Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog.
Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.
CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the
argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means
settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in
CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as
popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are
rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static
for the last twenty years or so.
Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
To compound the matter the heat
content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is
no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for
possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth.
Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun.
The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.
Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.
Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the
evidence for it.
This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community
There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this
The incredible denials of controversy theorists is staggering! How can this
be political? Politicians can't agree on anything and would sell their
grandmother if it win them votes. Scientists will not and do not accept
being by politicians what science is!
194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their
promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the
money is expected to flow from.
Many are. And that's the point. We have to try and do something. Burying
our heads in the sand, didn't change facts. Especially challenging ones.
The cost of doing nothing is far higher.
The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too
I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.
What are you? Are you even a scientist?
I am. Are you?
In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.
Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy
Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of
There are few better.
At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.
Pity. You might have learned something.
Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very
credible, I'm afraid.
Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to
direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing
directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't
understand what you are getting at.
He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.
Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
Which model would you like to rely upon?
It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.
Read paras 1 and 2 of
Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.
"The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system".
What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it
was that they were directed to find.
It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.
However, climate science isn't one of them. The controversy over the
Climate Research Unit at UEA highlighted that there isn't a cover-up of
inconvenient data going on. Transparency is key in science.
Those questioning the science are far less transparent to be believed.
The IPCC were tasked to do their job primarily because the evidence is so
overwhelming in supporting anthropomorphic climate change. You'd have to be
blind not to see it.