2024 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum second lowest on record

[Leo123]

All I am saying is that there are 2,780 scientists say you are wrong. I hope you can live with those odds.

Citation?

 

[Luckyone]

Citation?

AI (Artificial Intelligence) answer. If you disagree, I suggest you find the closes AI office and open a debate with AI

Here is the AI generated response to your question:

The scientific consensus is that human activity is causing climate change, with a large majority of climate scientists agreeing:

• 2021 survey of Earth scientists
  A survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found that 98.7% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change.
• Analysis of climate-related studies
  An analysis of 3,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change.
• Important to note:
  While the "97%" figure is widely accepted, some argue that the true consensus on human-caused climate change is even higher, with recent research indicating a figure closer to 99%
  
  
• These are the report's key findings:
  • 1 Our climate system is in code red status. ...
  • 2 Limiting warming to 1.5°C is crucial and we're way off track. ...
  • 3 We can adapt and be more resilient, but there are limits. ...
  • 4 We already have all the solutions we need. ...
  • 5 We have to quit fossil fuels. ...
  • 6 Nature is our ally.

 

[westwall]

All I am saying is that there are 2,780 scientists say you are wrong. I hope you can live with those odds.

2,780 scientists who are dependent on continuing the lies so that they make their money.

That's why Appeals to Authority are ALWAYS logic fails.

 

[westwall]

AI (Artificial Intelligence) answer. If you disagree, I suggest you find the closes AI office and open a debate with AI

Here is the AI generated response to your question:

The scientific consensus is that human activity is causing climate change, with a large majority of climate scientists agreeing:

• 2021 survey of Earth scientists
  A survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found that 98.7% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change.
• Analysis of climate-related studies
  An analysis of 3,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change.
• Important to note:
  While the "97%" figure is widely accepted, some argue that the true consensus on human-caused climate change is even higher, with recent research indicating a figure closer to 99%
  
  
• These are the report's key findings:
  • 1 Our climate system is in code red status. ...
  • 2 Limiting warming to 1.5°C is crucial and we're way off track. ...
  • 3 We can adapt and be more resilient, but there are limits. ...
  • 4 We already have all the solutions we need. ...
  • 5 We have to quit fossil fuels. ...
  • 6 Nature is our ally.

No link, and consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

 

[Leo123]

AI (Artificial Intelligence) answer. If you disagree, I suggest you find the closes AI office and open a debate with AI

Here is the AI generated response to your question:

The scientific consensus is that human activity is causing climate change, with a large majority of climate scientists agreeing:

• 2021 survey of Earth scientists
  A survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found that 98.7% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change.
• Analysis of climate-related studies
  An analysis of 3,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change.
• Important to note:
  While the "97%" figure is widely accepted, some argue that the true consensus on human-caused climate change is even higher, with recent research indicating a figure closer to 99%
  
  
• These are the report's key findings:
  • 1 Our climate system is in code red status. ...
  • 2 Limiting warming to 1.5°C is crucial and we're way off track. ...
  • 3 We can adapt and be more resilient, but there are limits. ...
  • 4 We already have all the solutions we need. ...
  • 5 We have to quit fossil fuels. ...
  • 6 Nature is our ally.

Well, it's a good thing that 'climate scientists' agree, after all, they'd basically be out of a job if they were really honest. BTW, a 'consensus' is not even a scientific hypothesis. It is meaningless just like the title 'climate scientist.' Our climate is just fine, warming causes more green plants and less human misery and death compared to an Ice Age. Look at this:

A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Summary: The American Meteorological Society (Those who really study weather and climate) disagree with the 'climate scientists' who write 'important' papers warning folks of a warming 'Armageddon' with absolutely no viable supporting data, no experimental data, no real theory and certainly not even a hypothesis that can be tested.

It's all about money and, what better way to fleece the sheep than to scare them into the climate sheering barn.

 

[EMH]

AI (Artificial Intelligence) answer. If you disagree, I suggest you find the closes AI office and open a debate with AI

Here is the AI generated response to your question:

The scientific consensus is that human activity is causing climate change, with a large majority of climate scientists agreeing:

• 2021 survey of Earth scientists
  A survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found that 98.7% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change.
• Analysis of climate-related studies
  An analysis of 3,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that 99.85% of the studies did not doubt the human cause of climate change.
• Important to note:
  While the "97%" figure is widely accepted, some argue that the true consensus on human-caused climate change is even higher, with recent research indicating a figure closer to 99%
  
  
• These are the report's key findings:
  • 1 Our climate system is in code red status. ...
  • 2 Limiting warming to 1.5°C is crucial and we're way off track. ...
  • 3 We can adapt and be more resilient, but there are limits. ...
  • 4 We already have all the solutions we need. ...
  • 5 We have to quit fossil fuels. ...
  • 6 Nature is our ally.

and the PARROT goes BAWK...

 

[ReinyDays]

All I am saying is that there are 2,780 scientists say you are wrong. I hope you can live with those odds.

The other millions upon millions of other scientists agree with us ...

Again .. burning coal to tell us the evils of coal ... that's hypocritical ... but your knowledge base is too small ...

SB refutes your 2,780 scientists ... BTW you post #81 says these are geologists ... aka Earth Scientists ... ha ha ha ... what you want are papers published by Atmospheric Scientists ... aka meteorologists ...

I still can't believe you've never heard of Stefan-Boltzmann equation ... and neither have your 2,780 geologists ... we don't use SB in geology ... stupid ... we use SB in astrophysics ... it's not dogma, it's a Law of Physics ... and cannot be violated ...

Ask AI ... go ahead ... I dare you ... "How is Earth's climate system modeled on Stefan-Boltzmann's Law" ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... or maybe "Zealots without knowledge" ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

 

[Luckyone]

The other millions upon millions of other scientists agree with us ...

Again .. burning coal to tell us the evils of coal ... that's hypocritical ... but your knowledge base is too small ...

SB refutes your 2,780 scientists ... BTW you post #81 says these are geologists ... aka Earth Scientists ... ha ha ha ... what you want are papers published by Atmospheric Scientists ... aka meteorologists ...

I still can't believe you've never heard of Stefan-Boltzmann equation ... and neither have your 2,780 geologists ... we don't use SB in geology ... stupid ... we use SB in astrophysics ... it's not dogma, it's a Law of Physics ... and cannot be violated ...

Ask AI ... go ahead ... I dare you ... "How is Earth's climate system modeled on Stefan-Boltzmann's Law" ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... or maybe "Zealots without knowledge" ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Great debate post but no proof of your opinion has been included. Show me the AI response where it states that "millions upon millions of other scientists agree with us" is shown.

I would be okay is you showed that at least 10% (278 scientists) say the opposite.

I will not be holding my breath waiting for your links to that information, but I would be happy if you provided it so that we could ACTUALLY debate the issue and not fight between us to see who has the strongest OPINION.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well, it's a good thing that 'climate scientists' agree, after all, they'd basically be out of a job if they were really honest. BTW, a 'consensus' is not even a scientific hypothesis. It is meaningless just like the title 'climate scientist.' Our climate is just fine, warming causes more green plants and less human misery and death compared to an Ice Age. Look at this:

A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Summary: The American Meteorological Society (Those who really study weather and climate) disagree with the 'climate scientists' who write 'important' papers warning folks of a warming 'Armageddon' with absolutely no viable supporting data, no experimental data, no real theory and certainly not even a hypothesis that can be tested.

It's all about money and, what better way to fleece the sheep than to scare them into the climate sheering barn.

Great post ... thank you ...

One small point ... even if climate change was completely refuted ... climatologists would still have a job studying climate ... this Red Herring is sending meteorologists up into the polar regions for long-overdue research there ... and this will be returned as a better understanding ... better forecasting and fewer lost lives ...

Second point is the IPCC Report isn't peer-reviewed ... nor does it include any dissenting opinions ... profoundly non-scientific ... I have been keeping up with the scientific media, which is peer-reviewed ... and these climatologists don't even try to back up the claims in the commercial and political media ...

I read a bit of Dr Hanson's textbook on climatology ... he only included a small footnote about CO2's roll in climate ... he had to include math, and the math says CO2 doesn't change climate ... so Dr Hanson can't claim it does and still get published by a scientific publishing house ... or sell textbooks to universities ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Great debate post but no proof of your opinion has been included. Show me the AI response where it states that "millions upon millions of other scientists agree with us" is shown.

I would be okay is you showed that at least 10% (278 scientists) say the opposite.

I will not be holding my breath waiting for your links to that information, but I would be happy if you provided it so that we could ACTUALLY debate the issue and not fight between us to see who has the strongest OPINION.

My arguments start with SB, here's the link AGAIN ...

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible)."

The rigid mathematical proofs are given, please point and say which step is in error ... or ask your god AI ...

ETA: We've been using the graybody form ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School so I thought I'd work out the algebra for him:

T = (( S ( 1 - a ))/4eo)^1/4 [where T=temperature, S=solar constant, a=albedo, e=emissivity, o=SB constant]

Can you handle this simple arithmetic? ... how about load it into a spreadsheet and have fun ... fool around with the plus/minuses given for all this data ... and if you don't know what albedo or the solar constant is, LOOK IT UP, don't just guess ...

 

[Luckyone]

My arguments start with SB, here's the link AGAIN ...

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible)."

The rigid mathematical proofs are given, please point and say which step is in error ... or ask your god AI ...

Oh yeah, I had forgotten that you gave me Steve Boltzman last time.

I have now changed my mind. The opinion of 1 scientist overwhelms that of 2,780. You have now convinced me!!!! You won. I will no longer believe AI.

 

[Luckyone]

Well, it's a good thing that 'climate scientists' agree, after all, they'd basically be out of a job if they were really honest. BTW, a 'consensus' is not even a scientific hypothesis. It is meaningless just like the title 'climate scientist.' Our climate is just fine, warming causes more green plants and less human misery and death compared to an Ice Age. Look at this:

A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Summary: The American Meteorological Society (Those who really study weatheThankr and climate) disagree with the 'climate scientists' who write 'important' papers warning folks of a warming 'Armageddon' with absolutely no viable supporting data, no experimental data, no real theory and certainly not even a hypothesis that can be tested.

It's all about money and, what better way to fleece the sheep than to scare them into the climate sheering barn.

Thank you for bringing me the knowledge that there is an American Meteorology Society as I was not aware of it.

Having said that, your statement where it says that based on a 1995 report most scientists don't believe that environmental change will bring catastrophic consequences is not supported now (29 years after that report came out). In addition, the word "catastrophic" events does not mean that it is not a big problem............catastrophic and big are different levels and that does not mean that the problem does not need to be addressed.

Here is the AI response to my question where I ask "what is the American Meteorology Society's opinion on climate change". This what I got:

AI Overview

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) believes that climate change is real and is caused by humans:

• Official statement
  According to the American Meteorological Society (AMS), climate change is a serious issue caused by human activity and poses significant risks to society, essentially stating that it is not just a concern but a potentially catastrophic situation that requires action; their official stance clearly indicates the severity of the problem and the need to address it urgently.
• Member surveys
  Surveys of AMS members have shown that:
  • A large majority of members believe that global warming is happening
    
    
  • Most members believe that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
    
    
  • Most members believe that global warming will be harmful to people and society if nothing is done to address it
• Information statement
  The AMS's information statement on climate change provides an overview of how and why the global climate has changed over the past century. It also states that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century.

The AMS has also identified areas for climate change solutions, including: Developing a comprehensive plan for observations and monitoring, Modernizing climate science, Developing the future workforce, and Developing effective strategies for public understanding and engagement.

So I have to ask you "why is my search delivering a different answer than you supplied"? Is it possible that after 29 years and more information about Climate Change, has made YOUR scientists change their mind? Why are they NOW saying it IS a potentially catastrophic event????????

 

[Luckyone]

My arguments start with SB, here's the link AGAIN ...

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible)."

The rigid mathematical proofs are given, please point and say which step is in error ... or ask your god AI ...

ETA: We've been using the graybody form ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School so I thought I'd work out the algebra for him:

T = (( S ( 1 - a ))/4eo)^1/4 [where T=temperature, S=solar constant, a=albedo, e=emissivity, o=SB constant]

Can you handle this simple arithmetic? ... how about load it into a spreadsheet and have fun ... fool around with the plus/minuses given for all this data ... and if you don't know what albedo or the solar constant is, LOOK IT UP, don't just guess ...

See post #112

 

[Luckyone]

Here is the link to the PDF documents for the 2023 American Meteorologist Society evaluation of Climate Change.

It is an IMPRESSIVE document with every possible study results made available to all of us. It goes into extreme details to show what is happening and end result of this document is that we are having a game changing Global Warming event that is man-made.

Here is a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of the report. Notice the word "record"

The year 2023 was marked by the highest global mean surface temperature on record, exceeding the previous record-high year (2016) by a large margin of 0.13°C to 0.17°C, according toa range of scientific analyses presented in this report. This record high was evident in many other global climate indicators (Plate 1.1; Chapter 2, Global Climate). For example, humid-heat indices, which are relevant to human comfort and safety in ambient air temperature and humidity, were also record high in 2023, with humid-heat intensity (anomaly of maximum daily wet-bulb temperature) having doubled the value from the previous record year (1998). Sidebars 2.1, 3.1, and5.2 detail the extreme heat observed across the globe in 2023 and its impacts across land, ocean, and ice-covered regions.

 

[ReinyDays]

Oh yeah, I had forgotten that you gave me Steve Boltzman last time.

I have now changed my mind. The opinion of 1 scientist overwhelms that of 2,780. You have now convinced me!!!! You won. I will no longer believe AI.

View attachment 1055568

Yes ... Quantum Mechanics overwhelms 2,780 scientists who have never studied QM ...

Your AI is lying if it claims Josef Stefan (1835-1893) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) are the same person ... your AI is lying if it says the entire Physics and Astronomy community doesn't accept SB ... not consensus, but proof ... which I have provided already ...

Your 2,780 Geologists are not generally educated in radiative physics ... the only real commonality is Field Theory ... but if you've a course catalog that says otherwise, please post a link ...

 

[Luckyone]

Yes ... Quantum Mechanics overwhelms 2,780 scientists who have never studied QM ...

Your AI is lying if it claims Josef Stefan (1835-1893) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) are the same person ... your AI is lying if it says the entire Physics and Astronomy community doesn't accept SB ... not consensus, but proof ... which I have provided already ...

Your 2,780 Geologists are not generally educated in radiative physics ... the only real commonality is Field Theory ... but if you've a course catalog that says otherwise, please post a link ...

Like I said, you won. I changed my mind. I am now a total believer that Steve Boltzman is the only scientist that should be believed. He is like Trump, a God (or chosen by God) to be the main and top scientist in the scientific community.

God bless and protect Boltzman from any attacks on his knowledge and credibility.

 

[ReinyDays]

Here is the link to the PDF documents for the 2023 American Meteorologist Society evaluation of Climate Change.

It is an IMPRESSIVE document with every possible study results made available to all of us. It goes into extreme details to show what is happening and end result of this document is that we are having a game changing Global Warming event that is man-made.

Here is a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of the report. Notice the word "record"

The year 2023 was marked by the highest global mean surface temperature on record, exceeding the previous record-high year (2016) by a large margin of 0.13°C to 0.17°C, according toa range of scientific analyses presented in this report. This record high was evident in many other global climate indicators (Plate 1.1; Chapter 2, Global Climate). For example, humid-heat indices, which are relevant to human comfort and safety in ambient air temperature and humidity, were also record high in 2023, with humid-heat intensity (anomaly of maximum daily wet-bulb temperature) having doubled the value from the previous record year (1998). Sidebars 2.1, 3.1, and5.2 detail the extreme heat observed across the globe in 2023 and its impacts across land, ocean, and ice-covered regions.

Nice link ... [rolls eyes] ... the quote doesn't mention carbon dioxide ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Like I said, you won. I changed my mind. I am now a total believer that Steve Boltzman is the only scientist that should be believed. He is like Trump, a God (or chosen by God) to be the main and top scientist in the scientific community.

God bless and protect Boltzman from any attacks on his knowledge and credibility.

View attachment 1055593

There's a good little boy ... now run along and play nice with the other little children ... and stop trying to pick their noses ...

 

[Luckyone]

Nice link ... [rolls eyes] ... the quote doesn't mention carbon dioxide ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Evidently you did not see where I stated that what I did give as "an example" of what is in the AMZ report was a tiny, tiny, tiny part of the report

Nonetheless and since you did NOT BOTHER to read or find in the report about CO2, I looked it for you. I did not like the HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW part of your post as it is more of an insult than a debate response.

As such, here it is from the report itself, the CO2 comment:

Earth’s greenhouse gas concentrations were the highest on record. Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — Earth’s major atmospheric greenhouse gases — once again reached record high concentrations in 2023. Annual growth in global mean CO2 has increased from 0.6±0.1 parts per million (ppm) per year in the early 1960s to an average of 2.5 ppm per year during the last decade of 2014–23.

Let me give you your debasing comment back at you:

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW........

 

[Luckyone]

There's a good little boy ... now run along and play nice with the other little children ... and stop trying to pick their noses ...

Thanks for the advice. You are giving me good advice over and over again. Having said that, repetitive advice of the same kind gets useless because at some point it becomes senseless and even insultative. As you know, I do have a guideline I follow religiously, which is to put on ignore those that insult, debase or waste my time. Repetitive advice is time wasteful and the "the run along and play with the other little children" comment is debasing.

So this post is a warning that any more of this, you will gain the award of being put on my ignore list.

Take this warning anyway you like. At this point, you have lost most of my interest to begin with and I have no problem not seeing any posts from you anymore. I truly believe that debasement of people and repetitive statements meant to convince vocally (not through presentation of new (or further) data, statistics, and facts - if the first given are not convincing enough)is a waste of time.

Your call