patrick.net

Onvacation says

The facts speak for themselves.

It does get warmer. The question is why, and that I can not answer with 100% confidence.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

At some point Gore says that the arctic MIGHT be ice free in the summer AS EARLY AS 2013.

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

Another way of looking at this is the following - does anyone really thinks that emitting 32+ gigatons of CO2 every single year will not have any effect and can safely be ignored?

drB6 says

Another way of looking at this is the following - does anyone really thinks that emitting 32+ gigatons of CO2 every single year will not have any effect and can safely be ignored?

I do. Releasing only CO2 presents no threat to humanity.

marcus says

Funny how you trust scientists when their science brings you new toys or better tools. But when it brings you bad news, you go in to a state of denial, based on what ? Propaganda payed for by big oil ?

Two thoughts. First, those scientists aren’t sitting around getting grants to write the same thing over and over, year after year. People who have been around the block can tell when a group is milking the system.

Second, the issue skeptics have is that climate change scientists are not practicing science. Science doesn’t have a desired outcome, so anyone who is impartial would have to concede that the predictions from the models didn’t happen, so therefore, the science is not settled on the issue, because no one can claim they understand all of the variables to Earth’s climates.

Malcolm says

Releasing only CO2 presents no threat to humanity.

How do you know that? How can you with a certainty say that in the warming we are observing, there is no component of CO2 influence?

Malcolm says

Science doesn’t have a desired outcome

Yes, so we should keep an open mind.

drB6 says

How do you know that? How can you with a certainty say that in the warming we are observing, there is no component of CO2 influence?

No, and neither can you.

drB6 says

Yes, so we should keep an open mind.

I'm agnostic. Climate change due to man has not been proved. It doesn't mean it hasn't or isn't happening, it just means the experts failed in their predictive theories.

Malcolm says

No, and neither can you.

True. But that means that we have to keep an open mind, and we can not declare that "releasing CO2 is not a threat to humanity", just like we can not say "we will all gonna die tomorrow because of CO2 release".

drB6 says

True. But that means that we have to keep an open mind, and we can not declare that "releasing CO2 is not a threat to humanity", just like we can not say "we will all gonna die tomorrow because of CO2 release".

I can say that because there has apparently been no side effects that have been negative to humanity. Crop yields are high and the weather is statistically more stable now. Whether it correlates to be causation is a different matter, but CO2 is a trace gas necessary for life on Earth. Carbon is either in the air or in living and decaying things, there is a finite amount of it and it is just part of a cycle, just like water. When someone actually makes a negative, valid prediction on CO2 posing a danger to humanity, then I will revisit the issue for my own evaluation.

Malcolm says

apparently been no side effects that have been negative to humanity

I would not be so sure. There is some variability of climate, and we do not know if it is (partially) CO2-related or not. Also, bleaching of reefs is real and can be ascribed to warming and/or more CO2 in water. So, this is not settled any more than other climate questions.

And here come the Adjustments:
Global Warming may be 30-45% less severe than IPPC Wild Guestimations Models
https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/24/global-warming-likely-to-be-30-to-45-per

I don't understand the folks that keep repeating the myth that the models are so far off. It seems people don't know what the models even are. They aren't meant to predict exactly what will happen. But in general what has happened so far is worse than what the average models have predicted.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.

"It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models," climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
,,,
But John Christy says that climate models have had this problem going back 35 years, to 1979, the first year for which reliable satellite temperature data exists to compare the predictions to.

"I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world," Christy said.

Many of the overestimations also made their way into the popular press. In 1989, the Associate Press reported: "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide 2 degrees by 2010."

But according to NASA, global temperature has increased by less than half that -- about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit -- from 1989 to 2010.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds.html

GIGO!

Malcolm says

I do. Releasing only CO2 presents no threat to humanity.

What is your backup plan if you are wrong?

drB6 says

bleaching of re

That too is controversial. Bleaching can happen due to falling sea levels. All the reefs where I snorkel are unchanged since my childhood. It is funny how none of the tourist destinations have noticed damaged reefs, yet for some reason it only happens where we can't go and see it. The same with rising sea levels, no one has accepted the challenge of showing me an old and new photograph of the same place, where you can actually see a rise in sea level.

People are so adamant about this, yet, even the most obvious, simple proof doesn't seem to exist. It is almost comical, how the exact opposite seems to happen when climate alarmists start in.

Cities will be underwater......where?
Polar bears extinct.........No, actually growing in numbers.
No more snow in the arctic.......Lots of snow
Climate change refugees........None
Horrendous weather.......really? No, actually a decrease in storms and floods.
No more coral reefs.......Go visit Hawaii, Florida, the Caribbean, Australia
Famine and starvation.......actually fewer people than ever living in hunger

bob2356 says

What is your backup plan if you are wrong?

Don't need one. There are more imminent issues than me trying not to exhale because it might do something.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

three were roughly accurate

Simple - then lets just use these three models.

18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day In 1970. Expect More This Year.

https://fee.org/articles/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/


https://fee.org/media/28346/co2.png?width=600&height=434.14211438474877

3 predictions on the first Earth Day in 1970:

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

drB6 says

Simple - then lets just use these three models.

They aren't dire enough to be interesting.

drB6 says

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

My point is not that Al Gore is a credible authority and we should believe what everything that he says. My point was that the denier side repeatedly brings this line of 'argument' up even though the assertion that Gore was wrong is a lie, and even though the veracity of an Al Gore statement has little bearing on the question at hand. After this has been repeatedly pointed out, the Al Gore was wrong argument persists each time the merry go round does a lap. This is one of many examples of terrible logic and bad facts getting repeated. That is who you are having a conversation with.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

drB6 says

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

My point is not that Al Gore is a credible authority and we should believe what everything that he says. My point was that the denier side repeatedly brings this line of 'argument' up even though the assertion that Gore was wrong is a lie, and even though the veracity of an Al Gore statement has little bearing on the question at hand. After this has been repeatedly pointed out, the Al Gore was wrong argument persists each time the merry go round does a lap. This is one of many examples of terrible logic and bad facts getting repeated. That is who you are having a conversation with.

It's not a lie, Gore WAS wrong, and spectacularly so. That is the truth and you need to accept it to have a rational discussion.

drB6 says

Simple - then lets just use these three models.

If we do that, then it will appear we have time to solve the problem and don't have to throw as much cash at it as possible, as soon as possible.

mell says

It's not a lie, Gore WAS wrong, and spectacularly so. That is the truth and you need to accept it to have a rational discussion.

"Alternative Facts got in the way of our Modelling. Fuck the Facts, believe the Models."

drB6 says

How do you know that? How can you with a certainty say that in the warming we are observing, there is no component of CO2 influence?

Man makes about 3% of the atmospheric co2.

If we totally eliminated manmade co2 it would make little difference even if you believe co2 warms the earth.

Onvacation says

Man makes about 3% of the atmospheric co2.

Per year or total? And even 3% MIGHT make a difference.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

My point is not that Al Gore is a credible authority and we should believe what everything that he says. My point was that the denier side repeatedly brings this line of 'argument' up even though the assertion that Gore was wrong is a lie, and even though the veracity of an Al Gore statement has little bearing on the question at hand. After this has been repeatedly pointed out, the Al Gore was wrong argument persists each time the merry go round does a lap. This is one of many examples of terrible logic and bad facts getting repeated. That is who you are having a conversation with.

I understand. However, it would be better to have an academic, non-emotional discussion and have people who personally very obviously benefit from holding one or another viewpoint not participate. Also, the question always is "what to do". Denier side says that nothing needs to be done, and that is wrong for many reasons even if global warming is insignificant. Giving money to terror-sponsoring Middle Easterners or crazy Chavistas should be enough to develop some other energy sources. As someone pointed out, population control is one way (less E needed), and developing nuclear is another possibility.