The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

New Nate Hagens (forward thinker) video.
.
https://youtu.be/rrN0lbbSVOA
.
compare and contrast to the "Superheroes" video
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

While there certainly is a problem of short sightedness, I do not believe boards of directors are completely ignoring long term viability and profitability. That said, natural resources are heavily regulated, and have varying degrees of success at achieving long term sustainability. For instance, there are far more trees in our forests today than there were 100 years ago.

A properly regulated industry will balance the needs of consumers, the needs of the company, and the sustainability of the resource.

'World forest cover was some 70 million Km-sq 10,000 years ago,while it is somewhat more than 35 million today.The world has lost about half of its trees since the horticultural revolution,and of those it has lost,more than half have been cut down since 1970.As of the mid-1990s over 200,000 km-sq of tropical forests were vanishing each year,at which rate the forests would disappear by 2040.'
Craig Dilworth,Too Smart for Our Own Good.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

‘Seismic Shift’ In Climate Science: UN IPCC CO2-Induced Warming Estimate ‘Far Too High’

The IPCC said they were over estimating the damaging effects of CO2 by double what it was.
That's why none of their dooms day CO2 centric climate predictions came true. So instead of linking them all here is the root cause.

Neil saidjust a few pages back the sun has nothing to do with the climate.

As I understand it,the IPCC will not publish a prediction unless there's a high degree of certainty to the magnitude and time frame.
Since we're in an untried experiment,we have no a priori knowledge about how things are actually going to go,there's no way any climatologist can actually pin hard numbers or time frames on scenarios.
That said,what some of the climatologists are observing is advancing so quickly,and geometrically,that they warn that we don't have the luxury to wait until we have 'certainty.' We'll be beyond the tipping points,and the disruption irreversible.
The IPCC has all the worse-case-scenarios in hand,but they can't factually say anything about them.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

AL gore bought another multi million dollar beach front mansion in 2013 or 2014.
So the global warming grand wizard him self doesn't seem too worried about it.
And neither should I especially since I live 4,200 feet above sea level.
I like how Al remains cool as a cucumber while all his minions do all the freaking out.
I'm surprised that no one else is finding this behavior a little suspicious.

What Al Gore does as an individual is of little concern to me.
So far,I've not been able to find flaw with the science he's shared.I'm still looking.
I'll be sticking with the peer-reviewed science,by climatologists.
The ad hominem attacks don't do a thing for me.

[freebeard]

Since we're in an untried experiment,we have no a priori knowledge about how things are actually going to go,there's no way any climatologist can actually pin hard numbers or time frames on scenarios.

This is why when I consider design criteria for my own dream home, the envelope is -120 to +140°F. and wind speeds up to 250-300mph. It seems reasonable to me, any airplane fuselage* with adequate insulation and power would do.

Airborne debis excepted?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If wind and solar are so cheap and so quick to build why after 20 years of wide scale adoption has it barely carved out a sliver on our total energy produced pie chart?

I only have a 2 year associates degree in wind and solar power generation as of 2016, but what do I know.



The guy that reviewed that paper in 2009, James Shirley works at nasa JPL and edited the encyclopedia of interplanetary sciences. Right now he appears to be studying the effects of solar minimum on mars climate. Probably because of the political back lash attached to suggestion that man made global warming may not be the driving force behind climate change on earth.
You might say he sees the big picture like no one else.

Does he work at the NASA Goddard Space Institute? If not,his specific expertise might not be germane when discussing the earth's climatology.
Interplanetary science is not planetary science.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

‘Seismic Shift’ In Climate Science: UN IPCC CO2-Induced Warming Estimate ‘Far Too High’

The IPCC said they were over estimating the damaging effects of CO2 by double what it was.
That's why none of their dooms day CO2 centric climate predictions came true. So instead of linking them all here is the root cause.

Neil saidjust a few pages back the sun has nothing to do with the climate.

I'll let Neil speak for himself,but I'd like to offer up some of the variables which NASA has had to consider and incorporate into their numerical models (by no means a complete list):
*albedo
*Arctic shallow sea methane hydrates
*aspherity of inner core
*black swan events
*cloud type (temporal/spatial
*cloud cover (temporal/spatial
*cryosphere
*deep ocean heating
*dust storms
*ocean currents
*solar insolation
*solar plages
*convection
*conduction
*Antarctic cold lid
*ocean thermodynamics
*ocean fluid dynamics
*methane clathrates
*dissolved methane
*drought
*continental plate tectonics
*El Nino Southern Oscillation
*Decadal temp, oscillations
*relative humidity
*La Nina
*Dansgaard-Oeschaer oscillations
*Siberian permafrost methane eruptions,plumes
*volcanic sulfate aerosol eruptions
*evaporative salination
*evaporative cooling
*equatorial mass concentration
*meltwater stratification
*forest fires
*lunar cycles
*ice fractures
*general circulation models
*glacial disintigration
*greenhouse gas concentrations
*continental rebound
*hydrosphere\hydrological dynamics
*heat island effect
*heat conveyors
*hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones
*icebergs
*ice floes
*ice shelves
*infrared spectroscopy
*interhemispheric climate change
*inversions
*isotopic assays (carbon and oxygen)thermometry
*jet stream
*Keeling curve
*Kuroshio Current
*king tides
*lithosphere
*latent heat
*laser remote sensing of the atmosphere:
-atmospheric backscatter
-diiferential-absorption
-flourescence
-Raman
-(v) Doppler
*lapse rate dependency
*mesoscale problems
*meteorological drought
*Multivariate ENSO Index
*moulins glacial lubrication
*Milankovitch oscillations
*Maunder Minimum
*magnetic pole excursions
*magnetic reversals
*ocean heating
*ocean pH
*oceanic thermal expansion
*orbital forcings
*orbital spin axis
*orbital wobble
*precipitation
*polar vortex
*polyna
*peat decompostion
*paleopole
*salinity
*saltwater intrusion
*salt marsh
*sea floor spreading
*sea level
*sea surface temp
*snowfall
*seafloor hot spots (magma chambers,black smokers)
*snowmelt
*snowpack
*solar distribution
*solar flares
*solar minimum
*solar maximum
*steering winds
*storm surge
*Southern Meridional Overturning Current
*super moons
*supersaturated seawater (methane)
*swamps
*taliks
*tectonic thermal density plate subduction
*termites (methane)
*thermohaline circulation
*Tibet-Qinghai Plateau
*tornadoes
*tundra (melting)
*tidal surge
*trade winds
*tropical temperature variations
*undersea topography
*upwellings
*Walker Circulation
*water spouts
*water vapor radiative forcing
*West Antarctic Ice Sheet
*wetlands
*wildfires
*wind
*whitecaps
*wet-bulb temps
*Younger-Dryas

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Which law of science are you referring to as the one that proves the atmosphere warms when certain gas levels are increased?
I have spent upwards of 6,000 to 7,000 dollars on them, so obviously I love them.
My position is that the climate has been changing for the last several billion years and now man thinks he is the driving force.
I have always said the planet is warming, as it has been for the last 10,000 to 12,000 years, i would be more worried if it were cooling and man likely has some effect.

If you resolve the troposphere into a single sphere,at standard temperature and pressure,it's shadow will only cover half the width of the USA.
Since the start of the Industrial revolution,man has burnt the equivalent of Earth's entire forest cover,300-times.
Picture in your mind, 30,000 years worth of 100-year-old oak forest in a single bonfire.That's a snapshot of anthropogenic carbon.

[Xist]

I, for one, always refute the credentials of people that I do not like, or I just insult their face.

[freebeard]

I, for one, always refute the credentials of people that I do not like, or I just insult their face.

What's this got to do with ...your mom?

I'd like to offer up some of the variables which NASA has had to consider and incorporate into their numerical models (by no means a complete list):

How long did it take to gunny-bag that list?

It's unweighted and unsorted. Things and places. Some I'd need to look up. I prefer an overarching narrative — one that can accommodate Earth weather and space weather, since they are all one thing. It turns out Earthspots and sunspots act the same and share features:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPySY3CpgtQ