Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[kahuna1]

Yup ...

U are a scientist ? Really ? . Me, I am merely a robot on the internet.



Every claim you just made is actually not agreed to by 97% of the science community.
Of the remaining 3%, HALF are in the employ of fossil fuel companies and well ... that leaves the flat earth types.

Sorry but you line ... "The current rate of warming is actually not unusual." maybe ... and a very big maybe on that, the rate of CO2 change is UNPRECEDENTED and in the past, what took 200,000 years, we are going to achieve in 300 years. We already have CO2 levels at ones not seen in 3 million years and if your a scientist, which I doubt, you will know from very detailed records their is a LAG between CO2 and temperature change, Normally that is. Its never been raised this quickly even when a meteor hit the planet 65 million years ago, CO2 took a very long time to rise to its PEAK ... thousands of years.

Not much use ... your the scientist. Here is another one ... he is a scientist..



Some may call him a mad scientist, but he claims to know better than even his own scientists in the USA.

 

[Ann]

I have one question and one only.

Why is the Great Barrier Reef, our national treasure, or one of them, why is it 25% of the size it was in1985 and what is the cause ?

There are many major water quality variables affecting coral reef health including water temperature, salinity, nutrients, suspended sediment concentrations,[24] and pesticides.[15] The species in the Great Barrier Reef area are adapted to tolerable variations in water quality however when critical thresholds are exceeded they may be adversely impacted. River discharges are the single biggest source of nutrients,[25] providing significant pollution of the Reef during tropical flood events with over 90% of this pollution being sourced from farms.[24] When the 2019 Townsville flood waters reached the Great Barrier Reef, the flood plumes covered a large area of corals, even reaching 60 km out to sea.[26]

As of 1995, water visibility had decreased to 10 metres.[27]

Due to the range of human uses made of the water catchment area adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, some 700 of the 3000 reefs[16] are within a risk zone where water quality has declined due to the naturally acidic sediment and chemical runoff from farming. Coastal development and the loss of coastal wetlands—the latter acts as natural filter—are also major factors[28] From mid 2012 to mid 2016, 596,000 hectares of forest in the catchment zone was cleared.[29]

Trichodesmium bloom off the Great Barrier Reef

Industries in the water catchment area are cotton growing, comprising approximately 262 km²; 340 dairy farms with an average area of 2 km² each, 158 km² cattle grazing, 288 km² horticulture including banana growing, sugarcane farming, and cropping of approximately 8,000 km² wheat, 1,200 km² barley, and 6,000 to 7000 km² sorghum and maize.[30] Fertiliser use in the cotton, dairy, beef, horticulture and sugar industries is essential to ensure productivity and profitability. However, fertiliser and byproducts from sugar cane harvesting methods form a component of surface runoff into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon.[30][31] Link..

 

[explod]

Sorry Ann but just a quick google says you are wrong again:-

Coral reef destruction is defined as the degradation (and potential mass death) of the ocean’s corals. It is normally caused by illegal fishing techniques, pollution, careless tourism, other natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes, and of course, climate change—the culprit responsible for our warmer oceans and the main reason (according to experts) behind the death of nearly half of the Great Barrier Reef’s corals.

https://www.leisurepro.com/blog/ocean-news/5-main-coral-reef-destruction/

 

[kahuna1]

Yes ....
thanks ...

Due to the range of human uses made of the water catchment area adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, some 700 of the 3000 reefs[16] are within a risk zone

the rest ... is irrelevant ... when 75% of all corals EVERYWHERE are GONE.
Every single reef .... on the great barrier reef ... is showing mild to extreme bleaching. NOT 700 but 3000 out of 3000.

That is not an answer you have supplied. Its in fact despite your efforts proof that something is doing it called TEMPERATURE. AKA Climate change.


Actually the other part, of the wider problem of humanity and its activities by 2100 will have made 50% of all species extinct since 1850.

Thanks for playing ....

Did you know Giraffes just made the endangered species list ?


NEXT PLAYER ....

This was 2016 .. .a mere 93% then now in 2019 ... sadly ... we hit the JACKPOT at 100% with last summer water temps !!

 

[rederob]

The current rate of warming is actually not unusual.

False. It's unprecedented, and occurring when the planet should be cooling.

This is actually something which all climate scientists agree with!

False. I know of none, but please enlighten us with those you know.

It is a media/social media myth...

True. The media seldom quote the actual science.

What affects climate change is very complicated.

False. Climate is a response to a very simple energy balance equation. How climate propagates at the surface of the planet has many variables.

The climate has always changed to a large extent and to rates as fast and faster than the current rate.

False. There is no evidence of climate changing contrary to irradiance and CO2 attributions, and no credible evidence that warming rates have been more rapid.

It is true that most climate scientists now say that humans are causing the majority of the current climate change ..., but in reality we just don't know, and so far we haven't pushed the climate outside the normal, natural rate or limits.

False. The scientific probability of AGW being true is now calculated at 99%. The IPCC calculated it at 95% 5 years ago.

...alarmists (seriously, you don't know what a climate alarmist is? Keep up!) are further from facts and reality than the deniers....

I know of many false attributions from science deniers, so please enlighten me on all these alarmists who can be considered credible in science circles.

Yet amusingly, people like you still say I exhibit every tendency of the climate denier!

So far there is little you have stated that is credible - your understanding of climate science is not even at primary school level.

...I guarantee that I know a heck of a lot more about it than you ever will. I've worked professionally with climate scientists, I'm a qualified scientist myself, I've worked on projects directly related to climate science and environmental science.

Given your claims to date, you are delusional.
How about proving some of your claims, using actual science.

 

[kahuna1]

I found this amusing ....

true story ... NATURAL tan he has this person.
Trump Saves America From Fake News Climate Change Paris Agreement Hoax



He has not seen the latest ... from his other science advisor, NOT fox .... FROSTY ...

Frosty The Snowman Doubts Climate Change



Frosty is sadly now a yellow puddle ...

 

[cynic]

An insightful presentation on the mythical consensus also featuring some interesting comments on manipulation of statistics and exploitation of human psychological traits in agenda pursuit:

 

[kahuna1]

An insightful presentation on the mythical consensus also featuring some interesting comments on manipulation of statistics and exploitation of human psychological traits in agenda pursuit:





This message was provided by dear leader, climate change denier number one. Our PRESIDENT ... our first and last. It provides insight into this debate. One led by Oil and Gas funded Trump who now has a UN head who has never worked ... but is the wife of a coal billionaire. Its more interesting than climate science.



3 marriages, NO job till a reward Canada ambassador ... NO WORK EXPERIENCE ... head of UN climate change for the USA and IPCC .... yipeee ... we are stuffed.

Frosty has convinced me its all fake !! Why does that yellow puddle smell ? Why is that man ORANGE ?

 

[rederob]

An insightful presentation on the mythical consensus also featuring some interesting comments on manipulation of statistics and exploitation of human psychological traits in agenda pursuit

Mere opinion from a non scientist on a topic which is about survey methodologies and the probability their findings have merit. Nothing guarantees the underlying science as falsifiability is its bedrock.
Again, climate science deniers dig deep into irrelevances for their ill informed ideas.

 

[cynic]

Mere opinion from a non scientist on a topic which is about survey methodologies and the probability their findings have merit. Nothing guarantees the underlying science as falsifiability is its bedrock.
Again, climate science deniers dig deep into irrelevances for their ill informed ideas.

The problem is that data is relevant to science! And even more problematic is that some have arrived at conclusions that are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data.
One doesn't need to be a scientist to recognise departures from logic, impartiality and the correct application of mathematics.

Those promoting studies guilty of aforementioned failings, do themselves and their credibility enormous disservice.

 

[kahuna1]

The problem is that data is relevant to science! And even more problematic is that some have arrived at conclusions that are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data.

So 97% of all scientists are wrong ? And the IPCC since 1993 has been spot on with its science based predictions. They are wrong as well ... all 24,000 of them. Of the 50,000 who agreed with the 2017 report, all of them .... are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data ... and have ... departures from logic. In your opinion.

Golly. An interesting theory.



Sorry but at this point, I would bother with a reply, but the melting snowman convinced me its pointless.

Frosty has convinced me its all fake !! Why does that yellow puddle smell ? Why is that man ORANGE ?

 

[cynic]

The problem is that data is relevant to science! And even more problematic is that some have arrived at conclusions that are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data.

So 97% of all scientists are wrong ? And the IPCC since 1993 has been spot on with its science based predictions. They are wrong as well ... all 24,000 of them. Of the 50,000 who agreed with the 2017 report, all of them .... are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data ... and have ... departures from logic. In your opinion.

Golly. An interesting theory.



Sorry but at this point, I would bother with a reply, but the melting snowman convinced me its pointless.

Frosty has convinced me its all fake !! Why does that yellow puddle smell ? Why is that man ORANGE ?

No! I never said 97% of scientists are wrong! Nor did I say that 97% of scientists are right!

With the possible exception of the theories implicit to the actual practice of science, I do not claim to know what the opinion of 97% of scientists is on any matter.

I have examined the "paper" authored by Cook et al. which sought to assess, via examination of abstracts, the opinions of approximately 12,000 scientists on anthropogenic climate change.

Rather than repeating myself, here are a few of my earlier postings on this subject:

It's not only the fact that a lot of scientists have voiced disagreement, it is the logical flaws in Cook's approach to, and interpretation of, the collation of data.

Would you care to explain how 34% agreement, based upon interpretaion of abstracts from approx. 12,000 papers, were somehow transmuted into a near absolute consensus?

It would seem that some people's idea of the definition of 'bs' is anything that disagrees with their chosen opinion.

It would also seem that those same people believe science to be defined as anything that agrees with their chosen opinion.

I just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.

34.8% of authors endorse CAGW.

Who exactly do you claim is lying now!?

Edit: 34.8% of authors endorse AGW

Not CAGW as previously posted.

That figure was based upon the assessment of the paper abstracts using specific criteria to determine whether there existed, implicit or explicit, endorsement or rejection, or no position taken.

Based upon your postings, one could be forgiven for thinking that you have probably only read the abstract for Cook's paper. Please do me the courtesy of reading the entire paper before replying to this post!!

The conclusions of the other 64.8% authors, based upon their paper abstracts alone, most certainly did not contain the requisite 62.2% (i.e. 97 - 34.8 = 62.2) endorsement.

In fact, the majority (>60%) of the papers/authors (those assessed as having taken no position on AGW), were subsequently (and conveniently) excluded from the final calculations. Hence the totally bogus results.

And let's not forget that none of the endorsement criteria required a catastrophic perception of AGW.

But if an apocalyptic fantasy has become so important that the published facts no longer matter, well I believe that there may still exist, some specialised facilities, designed to cater for those who are no longer able to remain engaged with reality.

Huh!??
About what exactly?!!

Was I wrong about that, 34.8% of authors AGW endorsement, figure in table 3 of Cook's paper?

I made no implications about the >60% no position, other than it was incorrect to discount them in the final calculation.

It might not even be possible to know whether an absence, or presence, of endorsement by those authors exists, without further clarification from the authors themselves.

Of the 1200 authors who replied to a self assessment invitation, the level of AGW endorsement was higher, but still fell a long way short of the 97%.

Again I reiterate only 34.8% author endorsement, was discovered, based upon the abstracts.

The findings cannot support Cook's claim to the existence of a 97.1% scientific consensus for the simple reason that he doesn't have a sound basis for claiming to know what the AGW position of the 60+% of papers and authors (excluded from his tally) would have been.

Even if he had treated the 1200 self assessment responses as a crosssection for statistical purposes, the results would still fall 30+% short of the mark.

Cook was clearly either being incompetent or dishonest in his conduct when producing that paper.

Still totally overlooking the key point!

The same creative argument could be put forward about whether or not water is wet!!

The obvious shortcomings of Cook's approach are no excuse for presenting a dodgy result.

The research findings in Cook's paper cannot logically support his claim to the existence of the purported 97% consensus for the simple reason that 60+% of the authors/papers were excluded from the final calculation!

This convenient claim to the effect that "everybody believes, so therefore it's okay to presume roughly 60% were probably largely agreeable" is utter nonsense which has no place in the true practice of science.

Still missing the point!

What you are highlighting is the fundamental and logical flaw in Cook's approach to discovery/confirmation of consensus (or lack thereof).

He assumed that a consensus existed and then used that assumption to justify his exclusion of 60+% of the collated data from consideration, thereby biasing the results in favour of his opinions, and defeating the entire point of the exercise!!

This is getting lamer and lamer.

His paper is unable to demonstrate the widespread claims to the existence of near absolute scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW for several reasons.

One of those reasons is the assessment criteria don't require subscription to the catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in AGW endorsement.

A further reason is that the search criteria were limited to the point that only 11,944 (of 12,465 papers originally selected) were entered into consideration. By Cook's own admission "11,944 papers is only a fraction of climate literature".

The method was demonstrably subjective in relation to the assessment of the abstracts. 33% of the endorsement ratings failed to achieve consistency, prior to allowing communication between those "independent" assessors with 16%, endorsement rating disagreement remaining thereafter.

The 14% response to self assessment, produced vastly different results, further demonstrating the shortcomings of the abstract assessment methodology.

And to top it all off, Cook then decides that it's okay to ignore the 60+% no position papers, because he likes to somehow believe that most of them would endorse AGW!!!

Now one can construct as many inapt analogies as one likes, around widely agreed scientific viewpoints on tectonic plates and solar temperature, but they are irrelevant to catastrophic climate change, etc. for the simple reason that widespread uncertainty and disagreement is evidenced by the heated disputes that continue to emerge from many members of the scientific community.

There you go again totally misconstruing what I was saying in a vain attempt to defend your precious 97% illusion!

34.8% does not a consensus maketh!!

No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!

Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!

34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!

It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!

34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!

You cannot count 97 to 98% of no positions as yes, but Cook has effectively done that!

34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.

Those are facts that I understand perfectly well!

Then his conclusions cannot support the claim that 97% of scientists are in agreement with his purported AGW consensus, because he only counted 35.4% of them!!!

That is in black and white!!!

His conclusions could only be valid, if he could somehow demonstrate that those scientists, not recognised as holding an AGW position, were somehow in roughly 97 to 99% agreement with the AGW hypothesis.

He hasn't done that!!

He simply tried to justify his conclusions by opining that they probably were!

And by the way, your whale analogy from a post or two ago makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't even understand how it could possibly relate to my logic. This comes as no great surprise since this dialogue has alerted me to the fact that your concept of logic is clearly very different from mine.

Religious zealots often hold that perception of heretics.

34.8% AGW endorsement by author, is all that could honestly be claimed to have been found in that study. And even that result is somewhat dubious to those whom cared enough to read past the paper's abstract.

But it seems that those sharing in Cook's religious zeal, do like to perceive it very differently.

 

[rederob]

The problem is that data is relevant to science! And even more problematic is that some have arrived at conclusions that are not logically justifiable based upon the raw data.

So you have some idea that, for example, it makes no difference that temperature data have been recorded at different times of day. Please explain what makes it logical to use data which is inhomogeneous.
Or, perhaps you think you can use the raw satellite data on temperature. Please explain how you would do that.

One doesn't need to be a scientist to recognise departures from logic, impartiality and the correct application of mathematics.

True. Unfortunately you do not appreciate how climate science data is validated. You should read some of Thomas Karl's papers to get an idea of the reasons for data homogenisation, and the methodologies that have improved data reliability over time

Those promoting studies guilty of aforementioned failings, do themselves and their credibility enormous disservice.

I guess you will find yourself guilty.

 

[rederob]

I have examined the "paper" authored by Cook et al. which sought to assess, via examination of abstracts, the opinions of approximately 12,000 scientists on anthropogenic climate change.

No opinions were sought.
I read all your previous comments.
I can see clearly see what you think you know.
You should study logic and probability (and science elsewhere) before making statements which needed to be based on sound reasoning.

 

[cynic]

No opinions were sought.
I read all your previous comments.
I can see clearly see what you think you know.
You should study logic and probability (and science elsewhere) before making statements which needed to be based on sound reasoning.

The posts, to which you are replying, relate to the argument surrounding the purported scientific consensus, and not to temperature measurements.

I can assure you that I am quite well versed in the application of logic and probability theory. Sadly those same qualities appear to be absent from those desperately clinging to the 97% notion.

 

[rederob]

The posts, to which you are replying, relate to the argument surrounding the purported scientific consensus, and not to temperature measurements.

I posted separately in reply to your separate posts on different topics, yet you have confused these into one.

I can assure you that I am quite well versed in the application of logic and probability theory.

If that were true, then your ability to use this knowledge is deficient. You consistently misrepresented Cook's data.

 

[cynic]

I posted separately in reply to your separate posts on different topics, yet you have confused these into one.
If that were true, then your ability to use this knowledge is deficient. You consistently misrepresented Cook's data.

If that were true, then it wouldn't be too difficult for someone to identify errors in my representations on the matter.

And yet, to date, no body on this forum appears to have done so.

Perhaps you might like to oblige?

 

[kahuna1]

Ok ... 50,000 scientists are wrong ...

Opinions or views and beliefs are one thing, how we arrive at them is another. Of course if someone is of the opinion via their logic and beliefs that the world was built in 7 days as some do, its impossible and in fact futile to go and try to convince them otherwise, I attempt to present a case, and leave it at that.

Often, its upsetting them, the presentation of a science based or logic based belief, and its against their core values and as such, again nothing to do with intelligence, of which I have little, to be of a differing opinion. Speaking as I tend to do of the future, and this I think is key for me, prediction of something its not possible to say with any certainty that you are correct.

With any prediction, stocks, markets, commodities or even more topical things like politics, the debate is about something, that may or may not occur in the future. People will either take it or leave it. Discussion and input are welcomed, well, most of the time. If as I have over many years taken the time to enter red hot debates over various things, with a view, often totally opposite of the current wisdom being touted.

I do these things, NOT to get a raise, but having examined others views, on what at times appears to be a fanatical fan thread, and finding an examination of say accounts, assets and possibility of success to be zero, and likely the stock is a scam of fools gold, present the logic. Some classic stories over the years of even ASIC doing its job with say a few stocks I bothered to take it higher. One turned out was insider selling and the other, one person, on Hot copper with 6 nics spreading rubbish. Bother were shams and lost 95% of value. Others similar and for my rewards, death threats, abuse, phone calls, threats of litigation and so on. Such at times is life.

Admitting your wrong, taking a decision to STOP the pain despite your beliefs or values, is a personal journey. As a trader, investor all my life, the best decisions I often take are BEING wrong. Not dwelling on the loss, taking some wisdom from it, if needed and learning.

Speaking about a MACRO based, valuation based approach to most topics, one based upon what occurred in the past, what drives markets and stocks, and NOT following the crowd just for the sake of it, often seems idiotic. I ran and have run on and off a thread on other sites and here about cycles and its forever speaking about an OPINION, one based upon science and logic and valuation and past history. People either take it, or leave it. Sometimes its seemingly calling for impossible things. Amusing and often heated at the time when your late 2000 trying to hose down a red hot NASDQ or late 2007 into 2008 trying to explain why a markets going to fall 40%. It turned out at 56% fall ...

History often teaches lessons in finance, and also life, which we forget, or are made to forget so someone can sell a stock that longer term is worthless and worth 10 cents and we buy it at $3-. Whilst not hoping to get a hard based valuation based approach as a filter to any stock .... so wrong ... it happens. Taking the loss ... at some set level is admitting your WRONG and moving on. You missed something, the directors lie to you, and in modern times, technology can make things like horse and buggy worthless seemingly over a few years with the invention of cars. In modern times its almost overnight or 12 months the value of something which was around for 50 years, overnight is worth half.

It is an interesting if not fascinating life I have enjoyed. Being right, or stubborn, or pigheaded, gets one no where. I listen and have been gifted by doing so, even to the most illogical of arguments. Non scientific fan based ones or religious ones, or people who just like arguing or the pure trolls who do so for pleasure. In the end, you have taken all you can via intelligent discussion with others, and leave the flat earth trolls alone. Its not arrogance or needing to be right in saying this. If something has occurred 100 times previously, or a million times, and a person is arguing as often occurs, THIS time ... its going to be different. It sadly as Einstein said, insanity to do an experiment 100 times and expect a different result.

If someone chooses to say argue against a mere chemical reaction governed by LAWS of science such as endothermic and exothermic reactions, as does occur ... I listen as to why of course. I point out that its been done 1000 times if not a billion times prior to this with the same result ... and your actually arguing it is wrong because this time it will be different, well, I try to be polite but when bombarded with this logic, it becomes tedious.

Climate science is about chemical and exothermic along with endothermic reactions. No more, no less.

Laws govern them. Not HUMAN ones but scientific ones, unwavering and ones that do not and cannot be changed. A reaction cannot produce more energy going in than is coming out.

This is why 97% of scientists agree. The other 3% are, well ... outside the employ of the oil and gas industry ... a less than 1% take opposing views and yep I have read them. All are not logic or science based and trying to predict a reaction that has occurred the same way billions of times IS NOT going to occur is what it is.

Take care its been amusing ... watch out for Orange things and yellow puddles.

 

[Knobby22]

Let's not argue. People will believe what they want to believe.

Meanwhile Behring sea isn't frozen this winter:

Humans are living through a dramatic transformation of the planet's surface due to climate change, with the most obvious sign being the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. And now, imaging has revealed perhaps a new chapter in that decline: The Bering Sea, which under normal circumstances should remain frozen-over until May, is almost entirely free of sea ice in early April.

Part of what makes this event so stunning, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) pointed out in a statement, is that the Arctic sea ice should be reaching its annual maximum right now. The summer reduction in sea ice normally only begins around now. And that process has, throughout recorded history, left the region between Russia and Alaska frozen at this time of year. But 2019 already has the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record (beating 2018, which was also a record-breaker). And that's manifesting in an unseasonably liquid sea off Alaska's northwest coast.

https://www.livescience.com/65166-bering-sea-ice-melt.html

 

[Ann]

Let's not argue. People will believe what they want to believe.

Meanwhile Behring sea isn't frozen this winter:

Humans are living through a dramatic transformation of the planet's surface due to climate change, with the most obvious sign being the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. And now, imaging has revealed perhaps a new chapter in that decline: The Bering Sea, which under normal circumstances should remain frozen-over until May, is almost entirely free of sea ice in early April.

Part of what makes this event so stunning, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) pointed out in a statement, is that the Arctic sea ice should be reaching its annual maximum right now. The summer reduction in sea ice normally only begins around now. And that process has, throughout recorded history, left the region between Russia and Alaska frozen at this time of year. But 2019 already has the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record (beating 2018, which was also a record-breaker). And that's manifesting in an unseasonably liquid sea off Alaska's northwest coast.

https://www.livescience.com/65166-bering-sea-ice-melt.html

So the next question is where is the problem? If most of the sea ice has melted in the Arctic and no island, state, city or country has been submerged as was suggested in the early days of GW then it is a moot point. If it continues to get warmer and all the ice disappears off the Arctic that will open up more land for food production, mining, habitation. The warmer temperatures will create more seawater evaporation which will create more H2O in the atmosphere, which will dilute the amount of CO2 and other concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. Then there is likely to be more clouds in the sky with the extra H2O in the atmosphere which is likely to give us more cloud cover and shield us to an extent from the suns heating UV rays. Nature has her plans.

We are so lucky to be living in this age, it has to be the very best time on this planet. Plants growing, humans creating wondrous new things, basically no famine other than politically induced famine. Our planet is thriving and doing what it always does, culling some things and creating other things we should be enjoying it not fearing the pleasure of warm weather.