It's been a bad week for Believers

​

AGW believers remind me of the extras in the "Walking Dead" they're brainless, unaware they're dead, feel no emotion, stagger around and still have a nasty bite.

 

you should refrain looking in mirrors if that's what it reminds you

 

Or actually develop a brain by reading scientific sources and not The Weekly Standard. Or even previous posts on these threads....maybe then wingnuts will not regurgitate the same talking points. They're either brainless egomaniacs or brainless zombies....

 

A long time ago, I dated this guy who smoked pot on a regular basis.

I'd suggest that he should stop.

He'd argue that he wouldn't until it could be proven to him—beyond a shadow of a doubt—that (the illegality of it aside) it was harmful to him in some way.

I responded, by the time that happened, it could be too late.

This debate is a lot like that.

By the time we know for sure, it could be too late.

 

I agree, it has been a great week for science!

Oh, look, it's the prestigious journal Nature! I wonder what they say?

Very interesting!

"there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate."

Now, who to believe - the prestigious science journal written and edited by scientists, or a Moonie-founded Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece? I guess both points of view are equally valid!

 

Just another example in the now standard practice of taking things out of context. The report is 550 pages, but apparently all we need is one sentence (that doesn't appear in the summary) to sum it up.

The report does state that trends in losses have not been attributed to climate change. It also states that climate change attribution has not been ruled out. How can this be? Most of the literature on losses is regarding cyclones, and the IPCC report states that increased cyclone activity is not expected as a result of climate change. So it's not really a surprise that the attribution doesn't exist in the current literature.

 

Polit,

Clearly you are not familiar with Amped's posting style. Just consider his avatar, and the rest becomes quite clear.

Icarus

 

Contrasting that summary against the editorial portion you quoted, I end up with even more distrust of the Washington Times.

Quick links for others readers:

Washington Post: Reports link heat waves, deluges to climate change
Seattle Times version of same article: Scientists cite global warming for more heat waves, heavier rainfall

IPCC Special Report junp page: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)

 

I have read all the pages of this thread to present

, and at first I was just a Fuzzy1, then I became Amped, maybe a little Cyclepathic, then I started turning a shade of AustinGreen.
I was surely out of my element, as I didn't have a clue what IPCC meant, that the year 2035 had any particular meaning, or that the dreaded
Climategate 2.0 had arrived.
I just know the sun seems a lot more intense than in my younger years, is it due to climate change or due to my aging???
I have enjoyed this thread , although a lot of it is somewhat above me, comment on.:rockon: I don't even know if I am a true believer or not

Arkie

 

It would help if you knew how the scientific method worked, before regurgitating "EDITORIAL" pages. They themselves take scientific reports out of context, and are never peer reviewed. For now, you've just shown a major contradiction in whatever argument you were trying to form (other then the usual rhetoric of everything that's bad is Obama's fault, even all of AGW science).

 

"The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC -- they have gotten the issue just about right, where "right" means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest -- sometimes it just takes a little while.
A few quotable quotes from the report (from Chapter 4):

• "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
• "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"
• "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses" "

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change

 

Mojo, we are 'on the same page' here. Extreme atmospheric events (my way to avoid calling them weather or climate) are increasing, but attributing them to anthropogenic causes is now rather tenuous.
To the extent that we are changing the (atmosphere&ocean) climate system, we are loading the dice towards certain types of extreme events. More changing in the future -> more loading We may not be on the same page there.

 

No we're not on the same page.
I dont believe that there is any substantiation that extreme events have increased.
Nor is there any scientific evidence that higher temps mean chance of more extreme weather.
All evidence Ive seen is exactly the opposite.
Major droughts occurred in cooling periods.
In the past 10,000 years when the Earth was warmer ,weather was less extreme.
Observation of the past is a lot more reliable than speculations .

 

Well...OK... but you'd have to look away from quite a number of analyses indicating that extreme events have increased. I'm medium sure that Pielke and I would agree on that, which would leave you all by your lonsies.

As much as I hate to deflect a perfectly good thread, something *has* come up. Remember how the apparent 800-year lag of T behind CO2 convinces you that the gas cannot drive global T changes? Yes?



Now, suppose somebody looked closer, and at more paleo proxies, and found that it didn't lag. Instead, that it led. Would that erode your certainty just a tiny bit?

Either way, I guess that a few here will be interested in a new publication by Shakun et al. in Nature. Title goes like this:

ARTICLE doi:10.1038/nature10915
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

Heckuva deal, this science stuff. It keeps converging on the truth, regardless of where we might hope it'd lead. That makes it a good week for believers in the scientific enterprise. At least in my book.

 

^^ Another news item about that paper popped up yesterday:

What Thawed the Last Ice Age? The relatively pleasant global climate of the last 10,000 years is largely thanks to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide

 

God Himself could carve "Climate change is real" in huge letters on the side of Mr. Everest, and the deniers would still say "But Rush Limbaugh still says climate change is a hoax so that settles it."

 

God himself has written that climate change is real,, he has wraitten it on Arctic Sea ice!

Problem is some people don't know how to read.

Icarus