Global Climate Change Science News

[Tyrannical]

You've got nothing, because you have no idea whatsoever of the actual data, and the physics behind the analysis...

Odd you mention 'actual data', because much of the 'proven' science involves how the actual data is 'adjusted' using non-scientifically proven models.

[Cunt]

You've got nothing, because you have no idea whatsoever of the actual data, and the physics behind the analysis...

Odd you mention 'actual data', because much of the 'proven' science involves how the actual data is 'adjusted' using non-scientifically proven models.

This 'actual data' would show that Gore got very wealthy after making shit predictions. Astrologers everywhere are jealous as fuck.

[pErvinalia]

What's your level of delusion? Do you doubt that the climate is getting hotter, or that it is getting hotter but humans aren't responsible for it?

[Tero]

The Finns are full of shit
elsewhere

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Above is the study from a Finnish University.

It claims humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2.

It also claims most of our warming over the last 100 years is due to cosmic rays.

Can anyone take apart this study, piece by piece?

Thanks.

What this paper did is take the largest reinforcing feedback in the system, water vapor, and its direct correlation, cloud cover, and claim that is the forcing rather than the reinforcing feedback.

Increasing temps are a direct cause for increasing evaporation rates. That in turn increases cloud cover. Which indeed does correlate very closely back to temperature increases, as predicted.

However, this is not evidence against CO2 increases being the primary driver of global warming. In fact it is evidence for global warming being caused by anthropogenic emissions.

Unless a different and better cause for the original forcing of temperature increases can be found, the best evidence suggests it is indeed fossil carbon emissions. Or more precisely, a human caused disruption of the natural carbon cycle.

Evidence for that can be found here: Berkeley Earth Summary of Findings
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

Any further questions?

[Tero]

The journal is not a peer reviewed journal, it is basically a blog
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... l-warming/

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:
(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.
(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).
(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).
(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.
(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).

[Cunt]

What's your level of delusion? Do you doubt that the climate is getting hotter, or that it is getting hotter but humans aren't responsible for it?

I don't by the offered solutions. They all sound ridiculous.

It brings much of their 'marketing wankery' into focus, and there may be a lot of facts to go with it, but I only have to worry about my life. I don't have to care what the Elites want of us.

[pErvinalia]

What's your level of delusion? Do you doubt that the climate is getting hotter, or that it is getting hotter but humans aren't responsible for it?

I don't by the offered solutions. They all sound ridiculous.

It brings much of their 'marketing wankery' into focus, and there may be a lot of facts to go with it, but I only have to worry about my life. I don't have to care what the Elites want of us.

You didn't answer the question.

[Cunt]

You didn't answer the question.

You are perceptive. I thought you were phrasing it like an insult, so you must have meant it for someone else.

[pErvinalia]

You're still not answering the question.

[Cunt]

You may want to rephrase your questions, and remember that most of my answers would be 'it depends', because if you string together some chain of bullshit, insisting that I must arrive at the same conclusion, I'll just say that immediate concerns are MUCH more of a priority than in racing against another vague doomsday clock.

If however you have more sensible questions...like would I vote for candidate a or b, or would I further limit my fuel use, those things could make sense and be answered.

If you invoke Bill Nye the Actor Guy, or David Suzuki, I'll just laugh at their carbon emmissions.

[Rum]

You would rather trust a politician than a scientis?

[pErvinalia]

You may want to rephrase your questions, and remember that most of my answers would be 'it depends', because if you string together some chain of bullshit, insisting that I must arrive at the same conclusion, I'll just say that immediate concerns are MUCH more of a priority than in racing against another vague doomsday clock.

If however you have more sensible questions...like would I vote for candidate a or b, or would I further limit my fuel use, those things could make sense and be answered.

If you invoke Bill Nye the Actor Guy, or David Suzuki, I'll just laugh at their carbon emmissions.

The question is fucking simple. Do you believe in serious climate change? If so, do you believe in anthropogenic climate change? Why are you afraid to answer?

[pErvinalia]

You would rather trust a politician than a scientis?

He'd rather trust Big Oil's propaganda department.

[Cunt]

If you invoke Bill Nye the Actor Guy, or David Suzuki, I'll just laugh at their carbon emmissions.

The question is fucking simple. Do you believe in serious climate change? If so, do you believe in anthropogenic climate change? Why are you afraid to answer?

Do I believe in serious climate change? Yes, Asimov covered the changing climate in the 70's, in a piece of writing. I've found it to be reasonable to suppose that it is still changing, 40 years later.

Anthropogenic climate change? I'm not a scientist, so claiming I 'believe in it' would be believing in some theory I haven't examined.

Do humans have an effect? Yes. Do I believe it's been assessed clearly? Nope. Do I believe any fumbling asshole knows how to 'fix it'? Fuck no.

Too much selfishness and normal humanity involved.

You would rather trust a politician than a scientis?

Which politician?

Mostly no, but I don't dismiss or trust all scientists, or all politicians.

What kind of idiot would base trust on group identity?

While I wouldn't want to 'trust big oil', I do use oil, so try to face that honestly, rather than create a fantasy where I'm not dependant on it.

From heat to plastic keys for my laptop, I fucking LOVE oil. Difference is, I admit it. Too many people are encouraged to pretend they DON'T like the amazing world we have here.

[pErvinalia]

If you invoke Bill Nye the Actor Guy, or David Suzuki, I'll just laugh at their carbon emmissions.

The question is fucking simple. Do you believe in serious climate change? If so, do you believe in anthropogenic climate change? Why are you afraid to answer?

Do I believe in serious climate change? Yes, Asimov covered the changing climate in the 70's, in a piece of writing. I've found it to be reasonable to suppose that it is still changing, 40 years later.

Anthropogenic climate change? I'm not a scientist, so claiming I 'believe in it' would be believing in some theory I haven't examined.

Do humans have an effect? Yes. Do I believe it's been assessed clearly? Nope.

So you don't trust science, but you trust Big Oil propaganda.