The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[Crick]

I haven't read anything but the OP in this thread, so if others have already taken the opportunity to shred you a new one, I may be duplicating their effort. Mea culpa, mea culpa

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,

What the fuck does that mean? The Hockey Stick was not a prediction. It was accurate and the trend still resembles a hockey stick.

2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted

AGW began with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1760. Radiative forcing from CO2 since that time has increased steadily with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.

Bullshit. The rate of temperature increase since 1965 has been 0.23F/decade. It is blazingly different than the backdrop changes.

4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it

Are you ignorant or do you choose to lie?
From Munich RE

NOAA

5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.

There has been no hiatus. Global temperatures have continued to rise, setting nonstop records for the last several years.

6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW

Ignorant bullshit.

7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Ignorant bullshit

Can anyone help me with any more?

Yes. Get a fucking education. Read objective science vice ignorant right-wing blogs.

8th point added and its a good one!!!

No, it's not

8) Most so called scientists are leftists in the university monoculture who throw out scientists who disagree with them so what value does their "science" really have?

Ignorant bullshit

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What the fuck does that mean? The Hockey Stick was not a prediction. It was accurate and the trend still resembles a hockey stick.
t

Old View (July 2006):

Jim Hanson:
“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, An Inconvenient Truth. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”

so now we know he was wrong. We're past ten years, he said we had less than 10, we have not altered trajectory, and everything is fine, there have been no undesirable consequences, let alone significant ones that would justify changing the world's economy and starving a billion people to death.

Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.' (Pat Michaels)

James Hansen's climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong ...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-1...
Jun 15, 2012 - James Hansen's climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong .... It's actually been cooling since 1998, so that means it's infinite times ...

n 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.... There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.

Separately, another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

When confronted on his failed predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as former Vice President Al Gore’s advisor,

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.

Bullshit. /QUOTE]
The average temperature in 2013 was 14.6 °C (58.3 °F), which is 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1880, according to the latest (January 2014) analysis from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).Mar 10, 2016

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Are you ignorant or do you choose to lie?
From Munich RE

[/QUOTE]

so much for the science of global warming!!!!

Hurricanes are likewise used as an example of the “ever worse” trope. If we look at the U.S., where we have the best statistics, damage costs from hurricanes are increasing—but only because there are more people, with more-expensive prop-erty, living near coastlines. If we adjust for popu-lation and wealth, hurricane damage during the period 1900-2013 decreased slightly

Warren Buffett: Up to now, climate change has not produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance. As a consequence, U.S. super-cat rates have fallen steadily in recent years, which is why we have backed away from that business. If super-cats become costlier and more frequent, the likely – though far from certain – effect on Berkshire’s insurance business would be to make it larger and more profitable.

10 Things We Know About Accumulated Cyclone Energy
1. There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012.

2. There is a cyclical variation in the ACE of 6 and 12 months' length.

3. The contribution of ACE from the Eastern and Western Pacific is approximately 56% of the total ACE.

4. The contribution of ACE from the Atlantic Ocean is approximately 13% of the total ACE.

5. The minimum and maximum values of ACE per month are respectively 1.8 and 266.4.

6. The average value of ACE per month is 61.2.

7. The minimum and maximum values of ACE per year are respectively 416.2 and 1145.0.

8. The average value of the ACE per year is 730.5.

9. The total of ACE for 2012 through September is 540.8.

10. There is a correlation of ACE between some oceans.
“By and large, the projected changes will be pretty small compared to natural variability so may not be detectable for a long time,” Knappenberger said. “Recent trends, in whatever direction, are dominated by natural variability and thus very likely do not display a detectable global warming signal.”

Other scientists note just how small the projected changes in hurricanes and other storms will be. Dr. Christopher Landsea, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), argued global warming can make it harder for storms to intensify.



Read more: The Real ‘Consensus’: Global Warming Causes FEWER Hurricanes

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ignorant bullshit.

can the silly liberal say why its BS or is it more girly emotional liberal feelings. Time to go to your safe space?

 

[Billy_Bob]

yes climate changes and we really don't know climate history at all. For example was the Little Ice Age regional or not.

It was regional. That's well known. All the data confirms that.

So how do we know if temp is going up normally after ice age?

Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.

LOL

A hysterical load of crap..

The LIA was most certainly a global event and is in paleo records in both plant life and geological records..

 

[SSDD]

You've been pointed at THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers presenting evidence of AGW. You simply lie and continue to claim they don't exist. You're comments are absolutely worthless.

And I haven't seen a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...and since neither you, nor anyone else seems to be able to find any, and haven't for decades, one can only assume that it isn't there....evidence of a changing climate is not evidence that mankind is changing it...


If any actual evidence existed, one would not be able to avoid it rather than asking fruitlessly for decades for it.

 

[SSDD]

Law Dome ice core data seems to fit perfectly with AGW??

Really? How does this jibe perfectly with AGW?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The IPCC made their original assumptions in 1988. IN that work they gave estimates of warming which would occur. Ever since the original 4-6 deg C rise / doubling of CO2

280 to 400 is a doubling?

God, you're stupid. You can't even divide. Or get the sensitivity right, being 3.0 is the generally agreed upon number.

And again, here's how good the models are. Note that they have _underpredicted_ the warming. That is, current global temps are a bit warmer than model predictions.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5

You really are a fucking retard. 280 x 2 =560 or one doubling. Our current value is 408 and should be at least 62% of one doubling or 3-4 deg C by the IPCC assessment projections... We are at less than 0.8 deg C rise and consistent with orbital change and solar change.. values.. Where is your attributable to CO2 warming?

 

[mamooth]

You really are a fucking retard. 280 x 2 =560 or one doubling.

But the current level is 400.

And you said the doubling had already happened.

"Ever since the original 4-6 deg C rise / doubling of CO2"

See? That's you saying it had already happened.

Instead of digging deeper into the stupid liar hole, just admit you screwed up. Lying ever bigger and crying at me isn't going to make your screwup go away.

 

[ding]

Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.

What? Are you smoking crack? No. That's not how the natural cycle was working. Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really are a fucking retard. 280 x 2 =560 or one doubling.

But the current level is 400.

And you said the doubling had already happened.

"Ever since the original 4-6 deg C rise / doubling of CO2"

See? That's you saying it had already happened.

Instead of digging deeper into the stupid liar hole, just admit you screwed up. Lying ever bigger and crying at me isn't going to make your screwup go away.

I see your ability to think critically escapes you as does basic reasoning skills do..

 

[Crick]

What the fuck does that mean? The Hockey Stick was not a prediction. It was accurate and the trend still resembles a hockey stick.
t

Old View (July 2006):

Jim Hanson:
“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, An Inconvenient Truth. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”

so now we know he was wrong. We're past ten years, he said we had less than 10, we have not altered trajectory, and everything is fine, there have been no undesirable consequences, let alone significant ones that would justify changing the world's economy and starving a billion people to death.

Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.' (Pat Michaels)

James Hansen's climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong ...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-1...
Jun 15, 2012 - James Hansen's climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong .... It's actually been cooling since 1998, so that means it's infinite times ...

n 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.... There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.

Separately, another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

When confronted on his failed predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as former Vice President Al Gore’s advisor,

I repeat, the MBH 98 hockey stick was not a prediction. Neither Hansen nor Oppenheimer had any involvement in it. Hansen made model projections in 1980 that are still amazingly accurate and infinitely more accurate than ANY GCM made that does not assume AGW is taking place.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I repeat, the MBH 98 hockey stick was not a prediction. Neither Hansen nor Oppenheimer had any involvement in it. Hansen made model projections in 1980 that are still amazingly accurate and infinitely more accurate than ANY GCM made that does not assume AGW is taking place.

AGW is more goofy religion than science:

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Law Dome ice core data seems to fit perfectly with AGW??

Really? How does this jibe perfectly with AGW?

Of course, it gets better - using all the data in ddjtemp.txt, this is what is shown.

 

[Crick]

You've been pointed at THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers presenting evidence of AGW.

sure but
1) all scientists don't agree despite 1000's of papers
2) the left throws out all who disagree so what is real value of papers?

Better than 97% of climate scientists concur that human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the warming observed over the previous 150 years. Your comment about "the left" is specious and completely unsubstantiated.

 

[Crick]

I repeat, the MBH 98 hockey stick was not a prediction. Neither Hansen nor Oppenheimer had any involvement in it. Hansen made model projections in 1980 that are still amazingly accurate and infinitely more accurate than ANY GCM made that does not assume AGW is taking place.

AGW is more goofy religion than science:

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted."

Of what model are you speaking? And why are you attempting to equate "global temperature" with "ground-based temperature"?

These?

And do you have a model from 1988 that performed better? Do you have ANY model that does not assume AGW that bears even the slightest resemblance to reality?

 

[SSDD]

Better than 97% of climate scientists concur that human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the warming observed over the previous 150 years. Your comment about "the left" is specious and completely unsubstantiated.

You use that bit of bullshit all you can for the next few weeks....that will also be one of the questions that pops up in the coming public debate between warmers and skeptics...among practitioners of the soft science of climate science, I suppose there is a consensus...but among the practitioners of the hard sciences, those who believe that our CO2 is the primary cause of warming are in a stark minority...and as we all know...the only reason there is a consensus among the practitioners of the soft science is money...

 

[Crick]

Since the level of consensus is going to do nothing but approach 100% in some sort of asymptotic fashion, I will continue to use it without concern. Your asshole getting in to the White House does not change reality, fool.

 

[SSDD]

Since the level of consensus is going to do nothing but approach 100% in some sort of asymptotic fashion, I will continue to use it without concern. Your asshole getting in to the White House does not change reality, fool.

I will be sure to bookmark this post to remind you in a little while how wrong you are yet again...

Reality is that AGW is a scam and a hoax...that reality won't change, but it will become common public knowledge.