Climate change has intensified hurricane rainfall, and now we know how much

[johnnyAU 3,634]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

C'mon, even Spencer and Christy have finally admitted their earlier data were misleading.  Both allow that the earth is warming. 

Neither say that warming is primarily due to CO2 emissions.  We all agree that the Earth has warmed since the coldest decade this past century. The issue is what is the main driver, and will it continue to warm, or will it cycle back to cooling.  

[homersapien 11,396]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Neither say that warming is primarily due to CO2 emissions.  We all agree that the Earth has warmed since the coldest decade this past century. The issue is what is the main driver, and will it continue to warm, or will it cycle back to cooling.  

It will continue to warm as long we continue pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  And then it will continue to warm after we stop, if ever.   That much is certain. 

What's not certain, is just how warm it will get and the magnitude of the consequences of such warming.

Regardless, it won't be a better world for you grandkids, if that's the sort of thing that concerns you.

[homersapien 11,396]

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

I've read both the ridiculous profiles of Christy and Spencer from Desmog blog/Skeptical Science long ago, along with many other ridiculous profiles of any and all scientists who are skeptical of the narrative, and who are disingenously labeled "deniers" by the left. 

Quoting liberal sources like the Guardian or Huffpost, etc...in addition to those two above buys you no credibility on the subject. It's the same reason I haven't quoted from Wattsupwiththat, Notrickszone, Breitbart, etc....

If you continue to use the idiotic term "denier" I'll continue to refer to the "cult".  I again refer you to the following article....https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#34d87ee17ac8

 

I offered you the term "underinformed skeptic". 

But you still sound like a denier to me. (Meaning you arbitrarily reject the consensus of virtually every qualified scientist as well as every single respected scientific organization in the world.)

And again, who publishes a paper has nothing to do with the validity of said paper.  There are accepted standards in science for establishing the veracity of research reports.  Attacking the messenger - the publisher - instead of considering the merits of the information they are publishing on it's own merits, is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.  In plainer terms, it's a bogus red herring.

I couldn't care less if you call me a "cult" member.  You are contemptuous of science.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

Just now, homersapien said:

It will continue to warm as long we continue pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  And then it will continue to warm after we stop, if ever.   That much is certain

No it isn't known. CO2 isn't the global climate control knob. It may in fact, get dwarfed by natural variations, as it has historically.  THAT part will play out over the next 5-15 years. We'll see firsthand just how far we have missed on determining the true climate sensitivity to CO2 when it cools in spite of ever increasing emissions. 

It will be a much better place for my grandkids. They'll thank me for remaining skeptical and teaching them how to adapt to a cooler world, rather than attempting to effect global economic policy based on poor assumptions and possibly forcing energy poverty through abandoning fossil fuels for wind and solar than cannot sustain the grids. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

Just now, homersapien said:

I offered you the term "underinformed skeptic". 

But you still sound like a denier to me. (Meaning you arbitrarily reject the consensus of virtually every qualified scientist as well as every single respected scientific organization in the world.)

And again, who publishes a paper has nothing to do with the validity of said paper.  There are accepted standards in science for establishing the veracity of research reports.  Attacking the messenger - the publisher - instead of considering the merits of the information they are publishing on it's own merits, is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.  In plainer terms, it's a bogus red herring.

I could care less if you call me a "cult" member.  It only reinforces my point: you deny science.

It only reinforced your lemming adherence to the narrative.  

[homersapien 11,396]

Just now, johnnyAU said:

It only reinforced your lemming adherence to the narrative.  

Is that your term for global scientific consensus?

You continue to make my point.

This is pointless, come up with a substantive argument or I will ignore your further posts.

[homersapien 11,396]

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

 

If you continue to use the idiotic term "denier" I'll continue to refer to the "cult".  I again refer you to the following article....https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#34d87ee17ac8

 

I forgot to mention I much I enjoyed the irony of you attacking the publishers I linked, immediately followed by a reference from "Forbes". 

That's chutzpah!

[homersapien 11,396]

9 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No it isn't known. CO2 isn't the global climate control knob. It may in fact, get dwarfed by natural variations, as it has historically.  THAT part will play out over the next 5-15 years. We'll see firsthand just how far we have missed on determining the true climate sensitivity to CO2 when it cools in spite of ever increasing emissions. 

It will be a much better place for my grandkids. They'll thank me for remaining skeptical and teaching them how to adapt to a cooler world, rather than attempting to effect global economic policy based on poor assumptions and possibly forcing energy poverty through abandoning fossil fuels for wind and solar than cannot sustain the grids. 

Well then, be sure to print out a copy of this and save it for them. 

[SaltyTiger 7,825]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It will continue to warm as long we continue pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  And then it will continue to warm after we stop, if ever.   That much is certain. 

So you are saying we are doomed Brother Homer?

[homersapien 11,396]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

So you are saying we are doomed Brother Homer?

Define "doomed"

 

[SaltyTiger 7,825]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

No. 

Any other questions brother Salty?

That is all. I believe your intent to be honest.

[homersapien 11,396]

5 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

That is all. I believe your intent to be honest.

You are too fast for me.  I changed my response.

I don't want to assume too much.

[SaltyTiger 7,825]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are too fast for me. 

I am not to fast for anyone on the computer. I accept your honest answer of "No",  we are not doomed.

[SaltyTiger 7,825]

doomed

/do͞omd/

adjective

 

1. likely to have an unfortunate and inescapable outcome; ill-fated.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 11/18/2018 at 8:31 PM, homersapien said:

  YOU make the case for whatever the case is.  Not my job.

Meanwhile, I'll just assume it's BS.  (A pretty safe assumption.)

Ironic how you don't apply this logic in your other thread.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well then, be sure to print out a copy of this and save it for them. 

Nah, I'll just tell them stories how a ridiculous over hyping of a trace gas in the atmosphere almost brought about a global redistribution of wealth all on the back of a false narrative, propagated through a cult like belief in political science rhetoric. We'll all have a laugh...then throw more wood on the fire. 

Maybe we'll put on some hot chocolate and watch a documentary of the mistakes we were making, and hopefully discontinued long before they were born.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6206758/

 

[homersapien 11,396]

14 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

doomed

/do͞omd/

adjective

 

1. likely to have an unfortunate and inescapable outcome; ill-fated.

OK, then I change my response to "yes". 

I thought you meant the end of Homo sapiens.

I think with time AGW will become obvious to most people on earth and we will at some point initiate desperate efforts to mitigate it, which due to the technical nature of the problem, can only be only partly successful.  It will undoubtedly be "unfortunate and inescapable" because of the technical nature of the problem.

But look in the bright side - you and I will be dead.

(And I don't even have grand kids to think about.)

[homersapien 11,396]

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ironic how you don't apply this logic in your other thread.

I have always responded to questions regarding the point I am making.  Show me otherwise.

What other thread are you talking about anyway?  Can you please quote what you are referring to?

[homersapien 11,396]

7 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Nah, I'll just tell them stories how a ridiculous over hyping of a trace gas in the atmosphere almost brought about a global redistribution of wealth all on the back of a false narrative, propagated through a cult like belief in political science rhetoric. We'll all have a laugh...then throw more wood on the fire. 

Maybe we'll put on some hot chocolate and watch a documentary of the mistakes we were making, and hopefully discontinued long before they were born.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6206758/

 

In other words, having failed to make a rational, scientific case against the veracity of AGW, you fall back to the "hoax" argument. 

Be sure to include this post for them.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

In other words, having failed to make a rational, scientific case against the veracity of AGW, you fall back to the "hoax" argument

There is no actual veracity to AGW.  Lots of claims and empty speculations, cult like beliefs and funding. Lots of funding.  I haven't seen anything you have posted that has bolstered your argument other than your typical fall back to a weak appeal to consensus.  

 

[homersapien 11,396]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

There is no actual veracity to AGW.  Lots of claims and empty speculations, cult like beliefs and funding. Lots of funding.  I haven't seen anything you have posted that has bolstered your argument other than your typical fall back to a weak appeal to consensus.  

 

OK.  Have it your way if you must.

But this is not a political argument, it's a scientific one.  And like Neil DeGrasse Tyson said......

When virtually all (99+%) of qualified scientists say AGW is real, that's good enough for me. Especially since I (mostly) understand the data. 

I suppose I just lack your expertise to see they are all wrong.

You've provided us a great example of motivated reasoning though.

 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

When virtually all (99+%) of qualified scientists say AGW is real, that's good enough for me. Especially since I (mostly) understand the data.

Another speculation neither you, nor Tyson can prove, yet you parrot it as fact, which I find both telling and hilarious.  Again with the appeal to a mythical consensus. 

It's all you have. 

[HVAU 673]

Such a frustrating read in this thread.

I am trying to be objective, but the participants that hold up ideas like "we'll just wait and see" when it comes to potentially devastating levels of environmental damage are holding a moronic position.  

Throwing out mantras about big money in climate science is also absurd when the amount of corporate money (read fossil fuel industry, automotive industry, mining industry, etc.) spent to counter the scientific data is considered.  I find that position also to be poorly chosen.

I've seen a few anecdotal statements about people working and taking with scientists regularly as support for their positions.  That's not relevant.  Most posters in this thread likely have regular communication with scientists or engineers.  Each has probably had countless conversations on the topic which have given them perspective.

The big question to all of us (unless you're actually a climate scientist) should be:

Who are the credible sources on which to rely, and what conclusions do their data lead them to?

Throwing around one isolated study or another without answering that question is just a form of scientific Gish galloping.

[homersapien 11,396]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Another speculation neither you, nor Tyson can prove, yet you parrot it as fact, which I find both telling and hilarious.  Again with the appeal to a mythical consensus. 

It's all you have. 

Actually, I posted detailed evidence for the "consensus" claim earlier in this thread, specifically the 99+% which I consider to be the most qualified estimate. 

You didn't respond to that.  Did you read it?

Here's a graphic that doesn't require all the reading:
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

[homersapien 11,396]

48 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Such a frustrating read in this thread.

I am trying to be objective, but the participants that hold up ideas like "we'll just wait and see" when it comes to potentially devastating levels of environmental damage are holding a moronic position.  

Throwing out mantras about big money in climate science is also absurd when the amount of corporate money (read fossil fuel industry, automotive industry, mining industry, etc.) spent to counter the scientific data is considered.  I find that position also to be poorly chosen.

I've seen a few anecdotal statements about people working and taking with scientists regularly as support for their positions.  That's not relevant.  Most posters in this thread likely have regular communication with scientists or engineers.  Each has probably had countless conversations on the topic which have given them perspective.

The big question to all of us (unless you're actually a climate scientist) should be:

Who are the credible sources on which to rely, and what conclusions do their data lead them to?

Throwing around one isolated study or another without answering that question is just a form of scientific Gish galloping.

Not sure if you had me in mind, but I think the data I have presented is pretty basic in terms of summarizing the big picture. 

I have descended into the weeds in responding to JohnnyAU's posts concerning more "isolated" data claims such as the reputed 17 year pause indicated by satellite data - but only because he brought it up and I felt it was necessary to refute it.

I also touched on the number of major scientific organizations that have issued statements supporting the AGW theory:  https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

(These organizations are very conservative when it comes to making such statements btw.) 

For brevity's sake, I am not going to reproduce a comprehensive list of these organizations, but they can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html