The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

As much as 98% REDUCTION of insect biomass in the rain forest, since the 1970's.

A 75% reduction of flying insects in German nature preserves since 1989.

The Cost Of Climate Change Across The Animal Kingdom | On Point

These are just TWO data points of many.

Another is that we have lost about 60% of all wildlife on average, around the world.

[niky]

The wind is slowing down

Interesting. Surface roughness can explain some areas, but not all.

Temperature gradients cannot be ignored.

[redpoint5]

Wait, so GW is causing more severe storms, but less severe storms, but higher wind, but lower wind, but more rainfall, but desserts?

I'm ignoring the subject for the next couple decades. Hopefully humans will have the capacity to slightly understand weather and global climate then.

[Xist]

If only we had some kind of scientific consensus!

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Wait, so GW is causing more severe storms, but less severe storms, but higher wind, but lower wind, but more rainfall, but desserts?

I'm ignoring the subject for the next couple decades. Hopefully humans will have the capacity to slightly understand weather and global climate then.

There are countermanding forces: more heat = more evaporation which results in both more drought and more precipitation.

And more heat = stronger storms, but there are more shear winds, which can prevent circulation from forming.

And more heat = melting ice which results in weaker jet stream, which "wobbles" - so the cold air that used to be contained in the Arctic, is "spilling" out, and so we see blockage of air flow, which means that we get both warmer weather up north, and colder weather farther south vs what we used to see.

[gone-ot]

Climate = what has happened over eons (PAST tense).
Weather = what happens day to day (PRESENT tense).

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Climate = what has happened over eons (PAST tense).
Weather = what happens day to day (PRESENT tense).

Not quite - climate is the patterns of weather over time.

[oil pan 4]

Patterns of weather over centuries time scale.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

‘The *science has, quite simply, gone awry’



https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...1-fc38ed4f85e3


https://ecomodder.com/forum/images/editor/quote.gif















These and many more.


Doesn’t sound like a “consensus” or “settled” to me.



>

In Nature,in 1999,an article mentioned that politicians have no trouble finding 'scientists' which can provide all the outcome-based-research they might need to argue their (Their patron lobbyist's )agenda.
If you put all the climate scientists in a room together,you'd have a room full of 'skeptics',but you'd be hard pressed to discern any climate skeptics,as they'd be absolutely overwhelmed by the magnitude of 'believers.'

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So 1971 versus 1885.
Hmmm. I know which one I would go with.
The 1885 observations are one of the few that show change over more than a century and can't be "adjusted".
Because that 1885 to 1930s anomaly really throws a wrench into the narrative.
Kind of makes you wonder whatwas going on prior to 1885. I could speculate but then I would be no better than a beliver.

Land falling major hurricanes is the observation.
I know the belivers can't and wont accept the oldest observations with out adjusting them to fit the predetermined result. Then always always fire back trying to reference stuff that has about 100 less years of observation.

I don't hate anyone.
I do like money. If I was being paid by the global warming establishment I would be singing a whole different tune.
The only answer the political belivers have is to slap billions of dollars worth of taxes on everything and not offer any kind of measurable, attainable time line of how to fix global warming. They are pretty much offering to lower my standard of living for nothing in return.
Yeah that sounds great. Where do I sign up...

The fight to throw out or edit anything that doesn't fit the narrative tells me all I need to know.

I've been looking at some papers which address this issue and will have more to add later,but it looks like the breadth of the early data,pales in comparison to more modern recorded measurements.
We've more recently had more terrestrial measurement/telemetry,seagoing reported data/telemetry,full-time meteorological data telemetry,airborne sensing/reporting,space-based sensing/telemetry,higher resolution measurements,greater quantitative measurements,higher frequency of measurements,etc..,more reporting infrastructure than ever before.
As of 1999,people were still 'discovering' forgotten databases of archival weather records,which have been undergoing digitizing, such that the data will allow global access to the data to any interested researcher.
Before 1970,there was less information available at the time,it was patchy,and inspired less confidence in comparisons.
The researchers are just playing a game of catch-up.
If you're looking for conspiracies,then confirmation bias is all you need.