CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[Oddball]

you're conflating it to mean that a bunch of people believe the same thing is what consensus is, which it is not

Wow.

Well, it's what you're doing.

"Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal."

Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia

 

[SSDD]

that is your opinion....not supportable by any evidence whatsoever...you seem to think that because you believe a thing, that it must be true...even when you have no evidence that it is true.

It's pretty bold to suggest you are less ignorant than leading climate scientists when it comes to the climate.

I think you give climate scientists to much credit....The field of climate science is relatively new, and science is just beginning to scratch the surface into what drives the climate...their knowledge is still in its infancy...

 

[otto105]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Sure...

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

Human caused warming of the planet.

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

Mountains of scientific data. Some even from Exxon Mobil.

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

The burning of fossil fuels.



Feel free to offer any scientific peer-review reduttal.

 

[Confounding]

"Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal."

Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia

The scientific consensus happened because individual scientists all came to a similar conclusion. You are very confused.

 

[SSDD]

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

View attachment 249329
Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

You should show that graph to the scientists that work for NOAA. I bet they've never seen it before. Maybe they'd disappear you for disrupting the narrative.

It was produced by a climate scientist that works for NASA....He is the principle climate research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville...And the Science Team Leader for the dvanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite and was the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Does he think AGW isn't actually happening?

No,he thinks that CO2 has some effect on global climate....but he has demonstrated that the climate models upon which almost all of climate science, and any "consensus" that exists at present are terribly flawed...

 

[Confounding]

I think you give climate scientists to much credit

It seems like skeptics often don't give them any credit.

 

[Oddball]

"Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal."

Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia

The scientific consensus happened because individual scientists all came to a similar conclusion. You are very confused.

That's agreeing to the same belief..."Consensus", properly defined, is a deliberative process, not a coincidental one.

 

[Confounding]

No,he thinks that CO2 has some effect on global climate

Do you disagree with him?

 

[Oddball]

I think you give climate scientists to much credit

It seems like skeptics often don't give them any credit.

How much credit do you give to scam artists and liars?

 

[otto105]

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

View attachment 249329
Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

You should show that graph to the scientists that work for NOAA. I bet they've never seen it before. Maybe they'd disappear you for disrupting the narrative.

It was produced by a climate scientist that works for NASA....He is the principle climate research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville...And the Science Team Leader for the dvanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite and was the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Does he think AGW isn't actually happening?

No,he thinks that CO2 has some effect on global climate....but he has demonstrated that the climate models upon which almost all of climate science, and any "consensus" that exists at present are terribly flawed...

Feel free to debunk this then...

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Exceprt
"One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down."

 

[Confounding]

scam artists and liars

I'd laugh at you if your view wasn't so disappointing.

 

[SSDD]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Sure...

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

Human caused warming of the planet.

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

Mountains of scientific data. Some even from Exxon Mobil.

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

The burning of fossil fuels.



Feel free to offer any scientific peer-review reduttal.

The Antarctic Centennial Oscillation: A Natural Paleoclimate Cycle in the Southern Hemisphere That Influences Global Temperature

Clip: The contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.


https://tropical.colostate.edu/media/sites/111/2018/01/Bill-Gray-Climate-Change.pdf

Clip: The globe’s annual surface solar absorption of 171 Wm-2 is balanced by about half going to evaporation (85 Wm-2) and the other half (86 Wm-2) going to surface to atmosphere upward IR (59 Wm-2) flux and surface to air upward flux by sensible heat transfer (27 Wm-2). Assuming that the imposed extra CO2 doubling IR blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 is taken up and balanced by the earth’s surface as the solar absorption is taken up and balanced, we should expect a direct warming of only ~ 0.5°C for a doubling of the CO2. The 1°C expected warming that is commonly accepted incorrectly assumes that all the absorbed IR goes to balancing outward radiation (through E = σT4- e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann law) with no energy going to evaporation. … This analysis shows that the influence of doubling atmospheric CO2 by itself (without invoking any assumed water vapor positive feedback) leads to only small amounts of global warming which are much less than predicted by GCMs.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...eview_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change

Clip: This manuscript will review the essence of the role of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coefficients. A review of the new theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays, is provided. The application of this new theory is applied to climate-change events within the latter part of the Earth’s interglacial period. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.


More where that came from if you care to see more...and those are only from 2018...

 

[SSDD]

I think you give climate scientists to much credit

It seems like skeptics often don't give them any credit.

No..there are some out there who are actually doing the work...

 

[SSDD]

No,he thinks that CO2 has some effect on global climate

Do you disagree with him?

I think the effect of CO2 on global climate is zero or less..CO2 is after all, the most widely used refrigerant on earth...kind of funny to give it credit for warming the globe....being a trace gas in the atmosphere and all..

 

[danielpalos]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

Climate change happens and is cyclical.



Better technologies at lower cost can save us.

 

[Oddball]

scam artists and liars

I'd laugh at you if your view wasn't so disappointing.

Apparently, you never saw the East Anglia e-mails, where they openly conspired to blackball skeptics, ignore FOIA requests, and bemoaned that they couldn't account for a lack of warming....You also appear to have missed the "Harry read me" file, where the fudging of the numbers by the warmer "scientists" was laid bare.

If those aren't scam artists and liars, who would be?

 

[Confounding]

If those aren't scam artists and liars, who would be?

Got any links?

And you think that's enough to say climate scientists the world over aren't credible?

 

[SSDD]

View attachment 249329
Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

You should show that graph to the scientists that work for NOAA. I bet they've never seen it before. Maybe they'd disappear you for disrupting the narrative.

It was produced by a climate scientist that works for NASA....He is the principle climate research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville...And the Science Team Leader for the dvanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite and was the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Does he think AGW isn't actually happening?

No,he thinks that CO2 has some effect on global climate....but he has demonstrated that the climate models upon which almost all of climate science, and any "consensus" that exists at present are terribly flawed...

Feel free to debunk this then...

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Exceprt
"One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down."

Look very closely at the chart in the paper...you will see that temperature almost always begins to rise before CO2 starts to rise...it is well known that CO2 lags temperature by 800 to 1000 years...this is because warm oceans hold more CO2 than cold oceans..as temperatures rise, oceans warm and when they warm they outgas absorbed CO2...

Increased CO2 is an effect of warmer climates, not a cause.

 

[SSDD]

If those aren't scam artists and liars, who would be?

Got any links?

And you think that's enough to say climate scientists the world over aren't credible?

You are really unaware of climate gate and climate gate II? Really?

Is this deliberate, or just due to the fact that you can't bear to see what sort of people are really running climate science?

 

[Oddball]

If those aren't scam artists and liars, who would be?

Got any links?

And you think that's enough to say climate scientists the world over aren't credible?

Global Warming With the Lid Off

These are the men at the forefront of the fakery!....It's GIGO.