climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[palmbeacher]

Meaning that everything the IPCC publish (and therefore also have published) is proven scientific facts?

It is a peer reviewed study which involved hundreds of leading academic researchers, including Oxford University. But I am sure you have much more expertise in the area of climate change.

A.1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}

That is not answering the question.

A scientific fact is an undeniably true statement accepted by the scientific community. Facts can be proven to be correct through observations and testing. This process is known as the scientific method. However, it's important to remember that nothing is ever final in science.

You can deny all you want: unless you are able to provide peer reviewed findings to the scientific community that disproves current findings, scientific fact remains that human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence). Good luck with that!

[Havre]

You remind me of Nelson.

An undeniable truth that is not final? Funny.

What have I denied? Lying again are we? Slide must be so proud. Finally found someone that agrees with him in that same odd aggressive way and then that person is a lier and lacks any sort of logic in his argumentation.

Also I wonder what kind of scientist wouldn't be interested in discussing the science? The Catholic type we found in Europe 1000 years ago?

[tegirinenashi]

So, 1.5 degree warming, big deal.

I'll cite global warming pioneer scientist Svante Arrhenius one more time:
"By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."

Somehow, activists masqueraded as scientists, turned up his vision upside down. Tell me, is 1.5 degrees warming beneficial, or detrimental? And before muttering "detrimental (scientific consensus, you know)", google "polar amplification". Now, suppose the temperature increases 0.2 degree in the equatorial region, and 2 degrees at the poles, would you consider this change detrimental? Think over twice before muttering your usual response insulting the readers intelligence.

[SimonP]

So, 1.5 degree warming, big deal.
Somehow, activists masqueraded as scientists, turned up his vision upside down. Tell me, is 1.5 degrees warming beneficial, or detrimental? And before muttering "detrimental (scientific consensus, you know)", google "polar amplification". Now, suppose the temperature increases 0.2 degree in the equatorial region, and 2 degrees at the poles, would you consider this change detrimental? Think over twice before muttering your usual response insulting the readers intelligence.

Everything you need to know about a 1.5°C increase is in Section B - Projected Climate Change, Potential Impacts and Associated Risks in
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
The key point is that extreme heat and rainfall events will increase and existing ecosystems will struggle to cope.
Given the lack of progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we are heading towards +3°C not +1.5°C

[Matteo V]

The key point is that extreme heat and rainfall events will increase and existing ecosystems will struggle to cope.

If that's the key point, then the scientist approving of that propaganda are idiots.

Increasing heat and rainfall do not necessarily have a negative effect on ecosystems.

Decreasing heat and rainfall absolutely have a negative effect on ecosystems.

The takeaway from the stupid statement that increasing heat and increasing rainfall is "bad", is that most scientist believe that eliminating evolution in ecosystems is the moral thing to do. Never on the face of this Earth has there been any mechanism which stopped evolutionary forces, external or internal, in ecosystems. Humanity, and the supposed environmental movement, is the first time that the Earth has seen something as unnatural as this.

[palmbeacher]

The ocean absorbs about 90 percent of the excess heat produced as climate change warms the earth. https://earthsky.org/earth/study-oceans ... -questions. As a result coral reefs are dying, fish migration patterns are changing and the oceans are acidifying.

Also we are losing glaciers and ice shelfs at record speed, and the Amazon rainforest is no longer able to retain enough moisture.

But please keep arguing that 1.5 degrees warming is no big deal...

[palmbeacher]

You remind me of Nelson.

An undeniable truth that is not final? Funny.

What have I denied? Lying again are we? Slide must be so proud. Finally found someone that agrees with him in that same odd aggressive way and then that person is a lier and lacks any sort of logic in his argumentation.

Also I wonder what kind of scientist wouldn't be interested in discussing the science? The Catholic type we found in Europe 1000 years ago?

Do you have a PhD in stupidity by any chance?

[Havre]

You remind me of Nelson.

An undeniable truth that is not final? Funny.

What have I denied? Lying again are we? Slide must be so proud. Finally found someone that agrees with him in that same odd aggressive way and then that person is a lier and lacks any sort of logic in his argumentation.

Also I wonder what kind of scientist wouldn't be interested in discussing the science? The Catholic type we found in Europe 1000 years ago?

Do you have a PhD in stupidity by any chance?

Yes. I wrote my thesis about undeniable truths that are not final. Seems like you have read it

[Pemba]

So, 1.5 degree warming, big deal.

I'll cite global warming pioneer scientist Svante Arrhenius one more time:
"By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."

Somehow, activists masqueraded as scientists, turned up his vision upside down. Tell me, is 1.5 degrees warming beneficial, or detrimental? And before muttering "detrimental (scientific consensus, you know)", google "polar amplification". Now, suppose the temperature increases 0.2 degree in the equatorial region, and 2 degrees at the poles, would you consider this change detrimental? Think over twice before muttering your usual response insulting the readers intelligence.

Amongst the "deniers", some seem to believe that there is no global warming. Some appear to believe that there is global warming but it's not man made and/or can't be controlled. And some appear to believe that there is man made global warming but it's actually beneficial. Some actually even seem to argue more than one of these. Others or maybe even all don't necessarily believe any of these three, just that there is no evidence for AGW. Lots of questions or issues to address obviously and with many in the "believer" camp almost becoming irate just being questioned about any of it by, arguments in this thread really seem to be going nowhere at all. I'm wondering if there is any sort of consensus among the "denier" scientists on where they stand other than just Pro "status quo" ?

Why does Svante Arrhenius keep on coming up ? All respect to him but he has died a long time ago and suposedly science has evolved. Do you feel that science died with him, there are no real scientists among the "believers", only among the "deniers" ? With regards to the 1.5 degrees warming being beneficial or not, I'm trying to form a better opinion on the issue. As you indicate the point has been made a few times. I think one problem is that at some point when a certain threshold has been crossed, the process of warming becomes irreversible (permafrost thawing I think). I've taken that to mean that it will continue, that it will spiral out of control. That would obviously be a problem. But maybe that's wrong ?

[Havre]

I appreciate your posts Pemba so I don't mean this is in a "passive-aggressive" way, but is it important if there is any consensus among those that hold a "denier" position?

Obviously I can see the point about "consensus", but how do you determine when consensus is a sign of truth and when is it a sign of too many people not being able to properly think of their own?

Most "facts", morals etc. have changed after there has been a "consensus" about something else historically. Maybe it changes the probability of something being right or wrong slightly, but consensus doesn't prove anything to me.

The reason why me wondering is because "consensus" is the argument one will most often hear when one asks how strong the science is among the "non-deniers".