Don’t Call It Climate Change. Red States Prepare For ‘Extreme Weather’

[ding]

The point you are arguing now has already been settled.

Not exactly.

Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) states in the conclusion section of a recently published peer reviewed paper:

In the title of this paper, we asked “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.



ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Of course the climate changes and there is extreme weather. What a crock of shit to think SUV drivers in Red States are impacting global climate change.

Haha, another person who knows less than nothing about any of it, speaking from his colon.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Leaning on the "science" eh........ Stuck on stupid and decades worth of study!!!!!


View attachment 569464

Translation: "The only thing I know about it is that it contradicts my weird little fetishes. So here's a meme!"

 

[struth]

You right wingers are arguing the wrong point.

The point you are arguing now has already been settled.

You just happen to disagree.

Yet it's the politicians you support, voted for and will continue to vote for who are taking steps to combat global warming.

They just repackaged and renamed it.

So now you can support combating "extreme weather."

Or not.

Yet you will continue to support and vote for the politicians who you disagree with on this issue.

i don’t think you can “combat” a blizzard you can prepare for it

it doesn’t help when you give our heating sources to the CCP though

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Their society depends on eating
Climate change is causing drought and famine

But go ahead and blame the victims

Because droughts and famines never occurred until the 1970's.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not exactly.

Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) states in the conclusion section of a recently published peer reviewed paper:

In the title of this paper, we asked “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.



ShieldSquare Captcha

Scientists don't pay much mind to this bit of theater. That paper never actually underwent independent, anonymous peer review. They have tried and failed to get it published in a more reputable journal, as they would not agree to the review standards. And the authors all have a long history of dubious methods and flat out falsehoods.

So there isn't even a motivation for any serous scientist to debunk this research paper, as all the serious work of doing that has already been done. They are already in possession of mountains of research from much more credible and more well reviewed sources.

Short version: not an actual challenge to the established knowledge. These guys have a lot more work to do even to be taken seriously as a challenge.

 

[ding]

Haha, another person who knows less than nothing about any of it, speaking from his colon.

If you are arguing that the rate temperatures are rising is unprecedented. That's not true. 25 D-O events during the last glacial cycle show that temperatures rose from glacial temperatures to interglacial temperatures - 5C swings up and down - over the course of a few decades. That's even on NASA's website.

Here is the climate data from the southern and northern hemisphere ice cores for the last glacial period where you can clearly see how much more erratic the climate of the northern hemisphere was compared to the southern hemisphere. (Southern hemisphere is the top graph, northern hemisphere is the bottom graph). And you can see how drastic the temperature swings were. So to LeftofLeft 's point that it's natural that the the climate changes and there is extreme weather, he is exactly correct and it is you who is ignorant of earth's past climates.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because droughts and famines never occurred until the 1970's.

A pretty stupid non sequitur. Example: there were always forest fires. Some are caused by humans, and some aren't. Educated adults don't have the time or patience to put these 'disclaimers for trolls' in every other sentence.

 

[ding]

Scientists don't pay much mind to this bit of theater. That paper never actually underwent independent, anonymous peer review. They have tried and failed to get it published in a more reputable journal, as they would not agree to the review standards. And the authors all have a long history of dubious methods and flat out falsehoods.

So there isn't even a motivation for any serous scientist to deunk this research. They are already in possession of mountains of research from much more credible and more well reviewed sources.

Short version: not an actual challenge to the established knowledge. These guys have a lot more work to do even to be taken seriously as a challenge.

You can't attack the content so you attack the authors.

Of course there's a challenge. Science is never settled. That's how science works. Besides within 30 years everything you believe will be proven wrong by colder temperatures because the hallmark of the bipolar glaciated ice house world that we live in today is increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty. Which is driven by the polar regions being isolated from warmer marine currents and the northern hemisphere threshold for extensive continental glaciation being close to our present temperature.

 

[HenryBHough]

-14F at 6 this morning on a date when the typical temperature range is +10 down to -2.
Pretty much the same range as for the last three weeks.

Yup. Global Warming will do that for ya!

 

[ding]

A pretty stupid non sequitur. Example: there were always forest fires. Some are caused by humans, and some aren't. Educated adults don't have the time or patience to put these 'disclaimers for trolls' in every other sentence.

Actually ThunderKiss1965 's observation that it's just weather is spot on. There has always and will always be a distribution for weather events.

Blaming extreme weather on an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 120 parts per MILLION is emotional, a sign of desperation and decidedly unscientific.

 

[DukeU]

Translation: "The only thing I know about it is that it contradicts my weird little fetishes. So here's a meme!"

Here's another.

 

[ding]

Translation: "The only thing I know about it is that it contradicts my weird little fetishes. So here's a meme!"

I think DukeU 's point was that it's pretty silly to panic over a less than a degree increase in temperature over a 1000 year period. I would agree. I would also add that that is especially true considering that our present temperature is still 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles. It should be expected that our temperature would increase to the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles. After all we only have 420 thousand years of data supporting that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here is something that usually does not occur to nonscientists, but which occurs immediately to research scientists: the quality of the publishing journal.

These NON-astrophysicists found 9ne journal to publish their work: an astrophysics journal.

However, this particular journal is rated very, very low. It has a rating of 47 on the H-index scale:

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.scimagojr.com

In contrast, the England Journal of Medicine has a rating of 1030.

This journal does not require independent, anonymous peer review. Another metric: impact factor. This journal had a impact factor in2018 of about 1.2. Reputable journals like Nature have IFs in the 40s.

To tie it off, one should expect the authors to publish their paper in a more reputable journal, subjecting to actual independent, anonymous peer review.

Yet they have not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

-14F at 6 this morning on a date when the typical temperature range is +10 down to -2.
Pretty much the same range as for the last three weeks.

Yup. Global Warming will do that for ya!

Americans are so dumb, we are still trying to teach them the difference between weather and climate.

 

[Cellblock2429]

That is not what science says. Show me his published science. That's what science is.

wait... he doesn't have any? he has no experience or education in climatology whatsoever?

Huh, what a bizarre post by you. It's as if you had to go find someone with no actual published science, in order to find a contrarian, and then present his unevidenced opinion as 'what all the science actually says". But that would be pretty stupid, dishonest, and anti-intellectual. Surely you are better than that.

/——-/ If you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

 

[ding]

Here is something that usually does not occur to nonscientists, but which occurs immediately to research scientists: the quality of the publishing journal.

These NON-astrophysicists found 9ne journal to publish their work: an astrophysics journal.

However, this particular journal is rated very, very low. It has a rating of 47 on the H-index scale:

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.scimagojr.com

In contrast, the England Journal of Medicine has a rating of 1030.

This journal does not require independent, anonymous peer review. Another metric: impact factor. This journal had a impact factor in2018 of about 1.2. Reputable journals like Nature have IFs in the 40s.

To tie it off, one should expect the authors to publish their paper in a more reputable journal, subjecting to actual independent, anonymous peer review.

Yet they have not.

Again... You can't attack the content so you attack the authors.

Rather than debate the scientific merits of their paper you would rather try to argue that their work should not be considered.

Here's what you don't want to be known.

A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.

Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. It has long been recognized that changes in the so-called “total solar irradiance” (TSI), i.e., the amount of energy emitted by the Sun, over the last few centuries, could have contributed substantially to recent climate change. However, this new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they were assessing the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.

A new scientific review article has just been published on the role of the Sun in climate change over the last 150 years. It finds that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have been premature in their conclusion that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC. The researchers
compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC. They focused on the Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.

The study found that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/——-/ If you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

But you didn't reader or understand the message. You posted an agreeable opinion, assuming it was valid due to his having credentials. Which was also transparent fraud on your part, as you don't give two shits about credentials. Else you would have sided withthe overwhelming consensus already and would not have to furiously Google for articles you never read and don't understand, then regurgitate them,

... as if it someone else's job to sift through your steaming piles of shit you never read and explain them to you and debunk them.. Please.

 

[ding]

Americans are so dumb, we are still trying to teach them the difference between weather and climate.

Can you be more condescending?

Weren't you just arguing that extreme WEATHER events are proof of climate change? Seems to me you are the only one here who wants to make weather be climate. The rest of us just call it weather. So whenever you see any of us using WEATHER to argue against your psuedo-science we are only doing so as a joke to make fun of you doing it.

 

[Mac-7]

China s making major changes to their energy consumption. They have to.

They are also leading the world on alternate energy R&D
A field we have neglected

Lefties chant hooray for china!

Long live Dear Leader Xi !

But yes, china is letting citizens freeze this winter by slashing coal production

Something the left would like to do here