climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[tautologies]

Isn't the argument equally silly on both sides? How many weather updates haven´t we seen in this thread as "proof" of both climate change and man made climate change?

As for the Dinesh video I can't see any flaws in his argument. Maybe a bit cheap rhetorically, but logically sound as far as I can tell.

One of the forecasts for climate change is more extreme weather, but in cold and warm and wind etc. The fact is that the average temperature on earth is higher now than it was 40 years ago. So a single day or week of cold weather does not negate that.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/

Matteo, no wonder you post D'Souza's the weather of the day as evidence of something else...you don't understand the difference either.

[Havre]

Isn't the argument equally silly on both sides? How many weather updates haven´t we seen in this thread as "proof" of both climate change and man made climate change?

As for the Dinesh video I can't see any flaws in his argument. Maybe a bit cheap rhetorically, but logically sound as far as I can tell.

One of the forecasts for climate change is more extreme weather, but in cold and warm and wind etc. The fact is that the average temperature on earth is higher now than it was 40 years ago. So a single day or week of cold weather does not negate that.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/

Matteo, no wonder you post D'Souza's the weather of the day as evidence of something else...you don't understand the difference either.

Yes. I have noticed this. Any weather can be used as an argument for "climate change". Colder? Climate change. Warmer? Climate change. Less wind? Climate change. More wind? Climate change. Dry? Climate change. Wet? Climate change. Would any observation be an indication of no climate change? Not sure if that is possible?

I would challenge anyone to show me that weather has stayed stable before the industrial revolution (which we for some reason chose to be "zero"). Climate has as far as "science" can tell changed a lot more rapidly and a lot more dramatically than that NASA-graph before - when you can't say it was because of human activity.

So we can agree climate changes. What causes this change? Absolutely it could be Co2. But even without increased Co2-levels caused by human activity the climate changes so should the Neanderthals have tried to stop "climate change"? Wouldn't that be interfering with a natural process?

By now I am typically considered a "denier". Not true, but I am fascinated by how strongly people "believe" in "climate change" without having solid arguments backing up that belief. Not saying that is the case for you - I wouldn't know.

[tautologies]

Yes. I have noticed this. Any weather can be used as an argument for "climate change". Colder? Climate change. Warmer? Climate change. Less wind? Climate change. More wind? Climate change. Dry? Climate change. Wet? Climate change. Would any observation be an indication of no climate change? Not sure if that is possible?

I would challenge anyone to show me that weather has stayed stable before the industrial revolution (which we for some reason chose to be "zero"). Climate has as far as "science" can tell changed a lot more rapidly and a lot more dramatically than that NASA-graph before - when you can't say it was because of human activity.

So we can agree climate changes. What causes this change? Absolutely it could be Co2. But even without increased Co2-levels caused by human activity the climate changes so should the Neanderthals have tried to stop "climate change"? Wouldn't that be interfering with a natural process?

By now I am typically considered a "denier". Not true, but I am fascinated by how strongly people "believe" in "climate change" without having solid arguments backing up that belief. Not saying that is the case for you - I wouldn't know.

I'll be a bit blunt here. I will take what you wrote in good faith and assume you are not trying to pretend to be a skeptic while you really just deny any kind of scientific argument. On climate change, there is no real doubt. There is consensus from experts and models and predictions does verify the science (by and large). There aren't two sides to this. Its kind of like gravity. If you drop a ball, you will expect it to fall. There is always the outside chance that this next time it will not, but you can be pretty safe in assuming the ball will fall. It is not about believing science, it is to what extent you understand it. No one claims "weather has stayed stable". We know there has been large incidents that caused the climate to change. Co2 does impact climate change. We know, it is well documented. The levels of CO2 today have not been seen for about what..something like 300 000 years....when sea levels were way way higher. The Increasing levels are because of human activities. We are burning fossil fuels, and removing CO2 stores. If you go back a few million years it was way higher..we well on track for CO2 levels like that in about a century. For the most part we know why climate has changed in the past. Volcanic eruptions and meteric strikes are some. Just know that back then it took hundreds of thousands of years to change the climate.

Most of your questions have very simple answer. For instance why we chose to be industrial revolution to be zero? That is when we started record keeping.

What I am saying is right now you are making some pretty big assumptions based on your lack of knowledge. You are asking questions about stuff we know pretty almost everything about, and it is a bit lazy to not bother seeking that information. I will grant you that it might be hard to understand which sources to "believe", but if you understand science and the scientific process then you will also generally be relatively decent at picking up on sources. For instance, NASA and NOAA has a shit ton of great stuff that is simmered down to us who are not experts at it. I'm not trying to be offensive, but the answers to the questions you ask are extremely accessible.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Havre]

Yes. I have noticed this. Any weather can be used as an argument for "climate change". Colder? Climate change. Warmer? Climate change. Less wind? Climate change. More wind? Climate change. Dry? Climate change. Wet? Climate change. Would any observation be an indication of no climate change? Not sure if that is possible?

I would challenge anyone to show me that weather has stayed stable before the industrial revolution (which we for some reason chose to be "zero"). Climate has as far as "science" can tell changed a lot more rapidly and a lot more dramatically than that NASA-graph before - when you can't say it was because of human activity.

So we can agree climate changes. What causes this change? Absolutely it could be Co2. But even without increased Co2-levels caused by human activity the climate changes so should the Neanderthals have tried to stop "climate change"? Wouldn't that be interfering with a natural process?

By now I am typically considered a "denier". Not true, but I am fascinated by how strongly people "believe" in "climate change" without having solid arguments backing up that belief. Not saying that is the case for you - I wouldn't know.

I'll be a bit blunt here. I will take what you wrote in good faith and assume you are not trying to pretend to be a skeptic while you really just deny any kind of scientific argument. On climate change, there is no real doubt. There is consensus from experts and models and predictions does verify the science (by and large). There aren't two sides to this. Its kind of like gravity. If you drop a ball, you will expect it to fall. There is always the outside chance that this next time it will not, but you can be pretty safe in assuming the ball will fall. It is not about believing science, it is to what extent you understand it. No one claims "weather has stayed stable". We know there has been large incidents that caused the climate to change. Co2 does impact climate change. We know, it is well documented. The levels of CO2 today have not been seen for about what..something like 300 000 years....when sea levels were way way higher. The Increasing levels are because of human activities. We are burning fossil fuels, and removing CO2 stores. If you go back a few million years it was way higher..we well on track for CO2 levels like that in about a century. For the most part we know why climate has changed in the past. Volcanic eruptions and meteric strikes are some. Just know that back then it took hundreds of thousands of years to change the climate.

Most of your questions have very simple answer. For instance why we chose to be industrial revolution to be zero? That is when we started record keeping.

What I am saying is right now you are making some pretty big assumptions based on your lack of knowledge. You are asking questions about stuff we know pretty almost everything about, and it is a bit lazy to not bother seeking that information. I will grant you that it might be hard to understand which sources to "believe", but if you understand science and the scientific process then you will also generally be relatively decent at picking up on sources. For instance, NASA and NOAA has a shit ton of great stuff that is simmered down to us who are not experts at it. I'm not trying to be offensive, but the answers to the questions you ask are extremely accessible.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"There is no real doubt" is just false, but I see people keep on repeating it as if it therefore becomes true. Not sure why, but maybe the world becomes an easier place to live in if you don't have to deal with uncertainty? Just to take the mentioned "models" - can you direct me to a model that has been able to predict anything with reasonable precision so far? I have read IPCC reports from back in the 90s and if there is anything consistent it is their ability not to predict the future very well. That doesn't prove that models cannot be right longer term, but I have yet to see one very good capturing short term predictions (years or even decades).

The argument you are presenting for Co2 means there is a 1 to 1 relationship between Co2 and temperature. That is clearly not the case.

So we are trying to get back to a period, the pre Industrial age, because that is when recording keeping started? I would be surprised if that was the case.

And you are to lazy to explain any of it to me it seems (so ironic that you are saying I'm lazy) - rather just referring to some other authority. That is fine, but it is kind of fascinating the arrogance you show doing so.

[tautologies]

"There is no real doubt" is just false, but I see people keep on repeating it as if it therefore becomes true. Not sure why, but maybe the world becomes an easier place to live in if you don't have to deal with uncertainty?

Again, you are creating uncertainty where there is barely any.

Just to take the mentioned "models" - can you direct me to a model that has been able to predict anything with reasonable precision so far? I have read IPCC reports from back in the 90s and if there is anything consistent it is their ability not to predict the future very well. That doesn't prove that models cannot be right longer term, but I have yet to see one very good capturing short term predictions (years or even decades).

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/

The argument you are presenting for Co2 means there is a 1 to 1 relationship between Co2 and temperature. That is clearly not the case.

We can measure how much increased levels Co2 impact temperature. There are other variables, but causation between increased levels of Co2 and the increased temperature has been proven.

And you are to lazy to explain any of it to me it seems (so ironic that you are saying I'm lazy) - rather just referring to some other authority. That is fine, but it is kind of fascinating the arrogance you show doing so.

It is lazy to not even try to find the basic information you are asking for. I did post links to NASA and pointed you to NOAA which has answers to all your questions. If you find that arrogant I am fine with that.

[Havre]

It is impossible to create uncertainty - either it is there or it is not. But quite common to see this type of urge for censorship among you that believe in "science". Which is ironic since a "scientific truth" is either true or not. Got to give you credit for admitting that there is some as in the inverted of "barely any".

I hope you are right. That we got models that are so good they understand how changes in one variable might give feedback loops to other variables. I have yet to find one even remotely close to saying it can do that. And I have read about that in a lot more depth than some summary on a NASA-page. I mean the graph I could have made - just draw a straight line continuing the black line from 2000.

The complexity of the task is actually quite ridiculous - in a good way I guess. Ask 10 scientists to agree on how you measure the average temperature in a room over the length of one week. I´m not sure if you would find two that would agree on the exact same protocol.

Anyway. If you good some proper sources I am all ears. If all you got is 53 second reads from NASA then I'm going to be the lazy fool denying science. Funnily enough most of us do when it comes to how we live our lives - even those that do believe in your "science".

[SimonP]

This logical fallacy is called "God of the Gaps". The more we know, the more so-called sceptics will retreat into the uncertainties as 'evidence' for their opinions.
I agree though that climate is a non-linear system with feedback loops. That is why we use paleo-climatic evidence to see what is possible in the future.
What we do know is that surface temperatures will continue to increase unless net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero.
Extreme global warming can and has happened in the past, take a look at the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum sometime.

[Matteo V]

One of the forecasts for climate change is more extreme weather, but in cold and warm and wind etc. The fact is that the average temperature on earth is higher now than it was 40 years ago. So a single day or week of cold weather does not negate that.

That prediction has fallen flat on its face too. But it is a farce to begin with.

You can claim an extremely mild hurricane season is the result of "extreme weather" just like you can claim a record number of hurricanes is the result of "extreme weather". Or if you have an average hurricane season, you can claim it would have been a mild one, if it was not for AGW.

But when AGW belivers state there will be no snow by a certain date, and there is still snow long after that, the prediction was without a doubt wrong. and that's why they brought up the "extreme weather" thing. It's harder for an idiot to understand they are being duped when they can be made to believe every answer fits the narrative.

Matteo, no wonder you post D'Souza's the weather of the day as evidence of something else...you don't understand the difference either.

Funny! And right back at you with this one... look at any flood, heatwave, cold spell, or devastating storm, and the church of AGW is preaching to every single eager journalist how it was due to AGW.

The problem with AGW is that is doesnt stand the test of logic when you reverse the situation. If bad things happen, it's because AGW made them happen. If good things happen, it's because we are taking steps to fight AGW.

[Matteo V]

What we do know is that surface temperatures will continue to increase unless net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero.

Then what? If we reach net zero CO2 emissions, then will we enjoy climate stability? Or cooling (VERY F---IN BAD)? OR still have some warming? Or have even more warming than now?

That is the entire premise of the skepiltics position. There is no control group for our climate, so we have no comparison. You cannot eliminate possible outcomes when you barely understand the system.

And yes, when your predictions and computer models fall flat on thier face, you know you have a problem making accurate predictions. But even more important, when you see your understanding increasing by ever increasingly finding new variables, you cant assume you have "a handle on things" to where you can claim any outcome based on known variables.

[Matteo V]

On climate change, there is no real doubt. There is consensus from experts and models and predictions does verify the science (by and large). There aren't two sides to this.

Really think about your statements here. Do they sound a bit draconian? Can you think of times where this type of statement has been used, then "enforced" by it's own self definition?

This is the kind of brainwashed junk that gets millions of good people face down in mass graves. And to claim this is science??? That's the joke of the show! Science doesn't teach us to NOT QUESTION like you would have us do. Science is about encouraging challenge in an effort to strengthen accepted understanding, or prove it wrong to gain a better understanding.

And thus we are brought the undeniable conclusion that AGW belief is truly more like religion, than it is not. I would welcome any refutation of this statement.