big massive article in local paper this am abotu how climate change is threatening our local area- pine martins, fischers, birds, all at risk because they are ‘cold climate species’- funny how they all survived the great melting of the ice age- and funny how they all survived much warmer temps in the past when the planet was young and the climates were warmer-
What scientists are actually saying is this “We love our cold weather species, that have migrated here, and don’t want to see them leave for some other part of the planet due to climate change, so we must alter natural cyclical warming trends in order to pervert the natural way of things so that we can keep the animals we want and get rid of the ones we don’t
climates change, species migrate- always have always will- but science and liberals want to bastardize the natural process of life by mucking with climate (funny thing is though- no amount of attempted mucking will result in changing it one iota- and they know this- they KNOW that climate change is NOT due to CO2- but climate change agenda is NOT about facts, but about manipulating emotions in order to commit the world to poverty so that governments can swim in money and control the masses- period! Science is NOT o n their side- hyperbole and thievery is
Man Made Climate Change is Real and its Awesome, Except I call it Central Air and Heat! hehehe
NASA and NFS still seem to be very big on global warming...
The whole global warming drives me crazy. They blame Matthew for global warming saying first hurricane in 100 years. So what do we blame the hurricane on from 100 years ago? That is why common sense is needed. Yes the earth is changing. It always has and always will. Can you imagine the New York Times during the melting of ice in Maryland, Pennsylvania and the rest of the northeast. Weirdly, liberals forget a big chunk of the United States was covered in ice once upon a time.
Of course the Planet is Warming, we just came out of an Ice Age from the late 1970’s that Killed All Life on the Planet, I read it in Time Magazine.
To study a 4 billion year system you would need over 6000 years of reliable weather data to say anything with any confidence about climate change.
That is scientific.
“...you need to be open to further understanding and additional facts/observations....”
Ugh... no I don’t! You see, I have logic. God given logic.
It is illogical that puny humans are able to affect “global” climate. Humans don’t exist in significant enough numbers to matter. It’s a YUGE planet.
It is illogical to believe that puny humans have the capability to correct any negative effects of global climate change REGARDLESS of the cause.
So, no, I don’t need to listen to the so called “scientists” who think humans are causing climate change or that humans could do anything about it anyway.
These are qualified experts who not only have a long history of scholarly study in the area, but have the scientific ability to analyze the models presented that predict future world weather.
Very, very wrong. Computer models do not predict future weather. When stated this way there is an implied element of certainty that is absolutely missing and misleading.
Computer models do not predict a future state.
Computer models can predict one possible future state. They can also be used to predict a range of possible future states. Our level of certainty in the results is very much open for debate.
There are several serious issues with the way results from computer models are used by certain political groups to advocate for policy decisions:
In short, don't put too much faith in the models, and certainly don't misuse them and their results for trying to peer too far into the future. When people do, they just look silly and ignorant to people actually in the business of computer modeling. They just don't work that way.
I would post something on this, but I have learned to stay out of religious debates.
You cannot discuss anything with a True Believer.
Somehow, even the Maldives seem to be doing fine here in 2018.
Yes, the Maldives would be an excellent indicator of increased sea level, as the average height above sea level is about 4 feet, and the highest point is about 7 feet above sea level.
And, the Maldives would feel the higher sea levels early, as they are in the equatorial bulge area.
.
Let’s try this angle.
Work the problem backwards.
What do the climate “experts” think is the ideal climate for Earth?
How do we get there from here?
What specific actions (negative/positive/time/frequency/duration)are required to achieve the ideal climate?
The answer will be a word salad of PC climate jargon with one clear theme:
“We don’t know how to control the weather or climate to achieve the ideal clinate. Yet somehow we know how to reverse climate change. But if you follow our recommendations and it doesn’t work, it’s not our fault.”
Of all the strategies one might employ to persuade another person on any particular issue, the absolute worst, counterproductive strategy of saying, basically, I’m right, you’re wrong, and there is no reason to have any discussion or debate about it because it’s settled.
And you would think if there were intelligent people who not only believed in global warming, but also in the importance of persuading those who do not so more action can be taken, that they would also be intelligent enough to know how bad an approach that is, and to not only use refrain from using it themselves, but to also reproach any other global warming believers employing that tactic.
So the fact that this approach gets either used and/or tolerated by everyone on the global warming side makes me have even more doubts about their alarmist views, as it makes me also doubt their intelligence.
Therefore, if by some chance they all turn out to be right, and our planet starts dying in a decade or two because of our carbon emissions, then I will not be blaming the deniers for that, I’ll be blaming the believers who put their own egos over the fate of the planet by using such a flawed persuasion strategy whose only benefit is to build up their own self image at the expense of others.
Oh, and I’ve said as much to some alarmists, and it absolutely drives them nuts to hear that!
More and more, they tacitly admit that it's not about science, it's about their religion, which is socialism.
Science is never settled and arguing that is about the most unscientific thing ever stated.
Correct. An example from history: there is no more "settled science" than Newtonian mechanics was around 1860 or so. Within 25 years, the experiments that it could not explain made it clear that something was seriously wrong with the "settled science". In fact, those experiments couldn't be (correctly) explained at all until Einstein, Schroedinger, and others did it in the early 20th Century.
The whole AGW claim is based on computer models of climate. A computer model is not "science" until it has a fairly impressive track record of predicting results. None of the AGW climate models can claim that.
For those with a technical interest, this link to a “Watts Up With That” article might interest you.
The Free Republic article deals with the accuracy of temperature measurements.
The WUWT article deals with the question “Is it even possible to measure Earth’s surface temperature?”
The complexity of Earth’s surface temperature is almost incomprehensible.
There are hundreds of layers and currents in the atmosphere and the ocean.
Each one has its own temperature. Each one is in constant motion. Each one is a different size or density. Each one is in constant flux.
Also, energy input and output are in constant flux.
Although the energy from the sun is quite steady - just plus or minus 0.1% per solar cycle - the rotation and tilt of the Earth are in constant motion, as are the distance and the orbital plane between sun and Earth.
The spherical shape of the Earth means solar rays strike at a wide range of angles, and cloud cover reflects solar rays during the day, but traps heat during the night.
Bottom Line....
The WUWT paper makes the claim that it is impossible to take a reliable, representative “sample” of the Earth’s surface temperature.
And, without reliable sampling, it is impossible to create mathematical models that predict Earth’s future temperature.