Are we at average temperatures of more than 3 degrees Celsius? No? and IF there is a greater risk of flooding, then the current drought in the Midwest and plains would NOT be part of the prediction. Correct?
Yes, they could. But they might not.
Yes, they could but this is why the IPCC report noted that in general (note the two words here and stop setting up strawmen arguments), North America and Northern Eurasia will benefit more than suffer. Correct?
Could be, but then that is not what I am saying. I am saying North America and Northern Eurasia will benefit overall. Correct?
No, it does not, but then I did not say it did, did I? I said, according to the IPCC, North America and northern Eurasia, IN GENERAL, will benefit. Correct?
And since you seem to be able to find the IPCC report on your own or recall it from the endless previous discussions on the same, perhaps, you could help Big John pull his head out and find it as well
Technically, it does not say either as that would be a value judgment (haha), BUT while it notes some drying, overall, it provides for warmer, wetter weather that would be more ideal not less ideal for better crop growing conditions.
Also, I wonder whether the IPCC would still like to stand by its 2007 assessment regarding hurricane intensity? Hmmm.. No?
Well, it is nearly September so more gushing headlines regarding Arctic Ice... predictable as the return of the swallows to San Juan Capistrano. Or something like that... maybe the return of the mummy?
and yes, yet again, buried in the article, we find that satellite records are from 33 years ago. That would take us back to 1979 which as we all know was a very cold year in a very cold period so perhaps ice was 30% greater than normal? and now is 40% less so perhaps the net loss is 10% and not 40% from an average?
And note this is going to be akin to 2007... but what about 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011? Nothing great to report there? Surely something? At least, in March, we can look forward to calving icebergs off the Antarctic peninsula... just like the swallows... returning to roost
I hardly see that the dumbing down of intellect is anything to celebrate. You should be encourage the global warming alarmists to use their brains and skills more not celebrate the inability to do so. Surely, we must raise the bar? and ask our global warming alarmists to stop "taking action" until they know just what the hell it is that they are trying to do. Why this reminds one of the Occupy Wall Street thread, one cannot imagine but one does... anyway... think that one should be able to laugh at the futility of the liberal mind in its exercise of action.
Because there aren't two sides, there's only one side. There are the facts, and then there are people who don't accept the facts. This fascination for wanting to 'hear both sides' is straight out of the Fundamentalist playbook.
It doesn't hurt at all, as long as we're all clear on what the facts are and we acknowledge that the 'debate' is simply a comparison of facts with non-facts.
Decades older than the last IPCC report, closer to 60 years ago. By the 1930s there was abundant evidence of AGW which wasn't even questioned in the literature. The only issues remaining by the 1940s were how fast the warming would increase, and the extent to which it would increase. The entire AGW theory had already been worked out decades earlier, and the theory simply continued to be developed as new information was discovered and integrated. In contrast, the modern evolutionary synthesis was not even complete until around 1950, and didn't start being verified and validated until after the DNA work of Crick in the mid-1950s.
No, that's simply the right to express your opinion, as I said previously. No one has a 'right' to question anyone, they just have a right to shoot their mouths off.
I don't think anyone has a right to say stupid things.
That doesn't make sense. Saying you shouldn't challenge people on a subject concerning which you're ignorant and they are professionally qualified isn't denying you the right to your opinion.
That's not a right, that's just something anyone can do. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Well no it isn't, because the people doing the challenging aren't part of the group, and typically aren't even part of the discussion. Most frequently, those who challenge non-expert opinion deliberately avoid interaction with those who are professionally qualified, because it would expose their ignorance and bring them under scrutiny they fear. Look at fred smith. His rants here aren't making a scrap of difference to the science, or the scholarship, or any 'groupthink' if it even existed.
The best antidote to groupthink is the process of scholarly interaction and the ruthless natural selection of peer review. The world of professional science is a cut-throat environment of multiple independent scrutineers who subject old and new ideas to the scalpel of examination again, and again, and again. These are the people who really count, and they are the ones who actually make an impact on scholarly consensus. They're the ones who find the errors and undermine faulty paradigms. The beauty of the scientific process is that it's auto-correcting, it doesn't need any contribution from boorish peasants grunting their uninformed opinions online.
Given that Stephen Hawking isn't qualified in anything remotely related to God, anyone can question his statements about God; he's not remotely an authority on the subject. But when Hawking speaks on theoretical physics or mathematics, then people who aren't as qualified as he is need to realise that they are in no position to contradict him without embarrassing themselves.
Well the Catholic Church grants them that right. But again, this is simply a matter of expressing personal opinion.
That's scary, dude. No one has the right to say there is only one side in the debate. THAT is from the fundamentalist playbook if you ask me.
Oh wait, let me anticipate your response!
Now, as neither of us are climate scientists, we are both in basically an equal position of examining the views of experts using our own sense of logic, wisdom, insight, etc. And we have the right to our own point of view. It is a right, IMO. But there is also a matching requirement of fairness.
If our personal opinion is to be respected as authentic, then we need to be authentic in developing and expressing that personal opinion. That is to say, we shouldn't just say any shit and say it's OK because it"s our personal opinion and we have a right to that opinion. It has to be based on an authentic process of examining the facts carefully. But unfortunately it's almost impossible to ascertain this, even if we were honest enough with ourselves to try and be fair minded in this sense when dealing with someone who is taking an irritating (to us) position on an issue we care about.
But it is IMO necessary for people to have the right to critique expert opinion, because we simply have to: we cannot be experts in everything ourselves, and nor do we want to surrender (I certainly don't) our right to decide for ourselves what is true and what isn't.
Another Global Warming Study Casts Doubt On Media’s Climate Change Fairy Tale
8:38 PM ET
Climate Hysteria: With climate change activists and the big media still in high dudgeon over President Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Deal, yet another study shows no acceleration in global warming for the last 23 years. Piece by piece, the church of global warming is being dismantled.
The University of Alabama-Huntsville study, conducted by climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider, shows that not only is the temperature rising far more slowly than predicted, but that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.
How do the study’s authors know this? They corrected a mistake that many other studies and model forecasts leave uncorrected: First, they used only satellite data, the most comprehensive and accurate temperature numbers available. > Then, they took out the temporary, yet significant, impact of both volcanoes and the El Niño and La Niña climate episodes that periodically wreak havoc on weather around the world.
Once removing the influence of those naturally occurring events, the study’s authors were able to come up with a stable base temperature for the world. Doing this, they found that the rate of global warming currently was 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade — exactly what it was 23 years ago.
This casts serious doubts on the dozens of models used in coming up with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s dire forecast of massive global warming based on rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, mainly from human activity.
Given that CO2 levels have risen sharply in recent decades but the pace of warming has remained essentially the same suggests that CO2 doesn’t have the warming effect that many models assume.
Rick Moran, writing at the American Thinker, puts it this way: “The UAH paper destroys the models that predict rising temps that correlate with rising CO2 levels.”
Yep. And it means that the U.N.'s prescription for this surge in CO2 — the massive downsizing of the global economy and the imposition of rigid socialist planning on all industrial economies — is nothing more than quackery, the worst kind of medicine.
But it’s the science that is important. Recent analytical studies of global warming models used for the U.N. predictions have found they tend to “run hot” — that is, predict far more warming than actually occurs. This study goes a long way to explaining why.
And over time, the difference in temperature estimates is enormous. Going all the way back to 1880, the study notes that most climate models predict nearly 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit rise in temperatures. But the calculated value from the actual data are less than half that, 2 degrees F.
And by the way, this is a published, peer-reviewed journal study, not a bunch of estimates from questionable mathematical models that were created to serve a political purpose, not a scientific one. It is of course in the interest of the researchers and the governments that fund them to find catastrophic global warming. And that’s exactly what they do.
Sadly, this is yet another study that the media will, for the most part, ignore. That’s especially true since Christy, a scientist with an impeccable reputation, is known for poking holes in the global warming religion’s dogma.
At some point,the left-leaning big media will be forced to recognize the growing evidence of the global warming fraud — just as the holier-than-thou media have in recent days had to come to grips with the tragic reality that the media outlets they work for are filled with serial sexual predators.
It is “natural”, but, of course, not acceptable to the narrative.
Lovely to hear from you. I am, and have been PNG, and BANNED, from both forum’s for quite sometime.
Both Forumosa and Taiwanese.
Do keep up the continuing discourse- Rub Salt in Their Wounds – and all that
CHEERS & best,