The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I got one that will make the belivers pee fire for sure.

As an example; Global Warming as a Manifestation of a Random Walk

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10....O%3E2.0.CO%3B2

It only makes more sense than all their failed predictions and is more plausible than pretending to understand everything.

Very well, I'll have a go.

That article is 28 years old.

Global and hemispheric series of surface temperature anomalies are examined in an attempt to isolate any specific features of the structure of the series that might contribute to the global warming of about 0.5°C which has been observed over the past 100 years.

That would be 1890 to 1990. We already established that we have no reliable data older than about 1958 or so, and that the global temperature has risen substantially since 1990:

It is found that there are no significant differences between the means of the positive and negative values of the changes in temperature from one year to the next; neither do the relative frequencies of the positive and negative values differ from the frequencies that would be expected by chance with a probability near 0.5

Since 1990 the probability margin has come down and the global temperature has gone up. Guess what that does for the prediction in this part, whatever it means.
Assuming they mean positive or negative values of the changes in the average global temperatures per year, that provides just a limited set of reliable data points (only 32 between 1958 and 1990) which might just do for trend analysis, but falls short for frequency analysis.

We hypothesize that the global and hemispheric temperature series are the result of a Markov process. The climate system is subjected to various forms of random impulses. It is argued that the system fails to return to its former state after reacting to an impulse but tends to adjust to a new state of equilibrium as prescribed by the shock. This happens because a net positive feedback accompanies each shock and slightly alters the environmental state.

Ah, it is a hypothesis. it might fit the data on which it was based, but the real test is subjecting it to new data. We can test that 1990 hypothesis on the data afterwards (1990 to 2018). Clearly, it fails. If you are looking for climate theories that go wrong, here is one.
While it is true that the climate is subjected to various forms of random impulses, it is also subjected to a reduction of outgoing heat radiation caused by a steady buildup of various greenhouse gases. This impulse is ongoing and increasing. There's no adjusting to a new equilibrium as there is no steady state.
Rather than subjected to undulations mimicking a Markov chain random generation process, we see the system forced out of balance in a consistent manner.

The AMS seems like a legit organization, but if you dig hard and deep you'll probably find some old papers proposing hypotheses that don't hold up when checked against fresh data.

This museum piece is debunked.

[Frank Lee]

What is gained by denying it?

The equation seems heavily unbalanced; Deny and do nothing could lead to severe consequences vs recognize and take action could mitigate predicted consequences.

[oil pan 4]

Not paying for what can't be stopped.

[Frank Lee]

The cost is?

[RedDevil]

It is not the first time human activity caused climate change, according to the University College London:

Highlights
• Combines multiple methods estimating pre-Columbian population numbers.
• Estimates European arrival in 1492 lead to 56 million deaths by 1600.
• Large population reduction led to reforestation of 55.8 Mha and 7.4 Pg C uptake.
• 1610 atmospheric CO2 drop partly caused by indigenous depopulation of the Americas.
• Humans contributed to Earth System changes before the Industrial Revolution.

Though in this case it is mainly viruses that caused climate change, even when human activity led to it.

If true (still seems like a big claim to me) this also means the original growth of humanity in prehistoric times up to now also impacted the climate.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I follow this thread, but since all the posts are read in the same voice, it's hard for me to follow who's on who's side. If this isn't debate, what is it? Vigorous conversation? Dialectic?

Look at the sources. I have posted numerous videos, that list their sources. In many cases - they discuss their sources, because that is the point of the video.

It is easy to know what sources are scientific and based on data - and which ones are not.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redneck

Of coarse there’s no debate. As far as the believers are concerned...

The Science is settled...

End of story...

Can’t question their scientific methods and or results.
( they’re above and beyond reproach)


Yeah, that’s not how it works...


So everyone that doesn’t tow the line or disagrees with any of your “beliefs” is a shill ?

Look at their sources. Only science is based on data. If you think your opinion changes the facts - that is not how it works.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

I stumbled onto this World energy report 2017 -2050
.

So peak fossil fuel use in the next 5-10 years? Interesting times ahead.

Originally Posted by aerostealth

https://newatlas.com/iridium-electric-motorhome/58270/

An electric motor home capable of 57.5 mpg e or 569 watt hours per mile.

I'm not a fan of RVs in general, but especially not one with a 180 mile range. It probably suits some people fine though. I wonder how many amps most "RV" hookups are rated to? Putting 90 kWh back into the battery would take some time, but if the intention is to stay for more than a day then it shouldn't be a problem.

Might actually be a fun way for retired folks to travel the country, 150 miles at a time.

[RedDevil]

I like to fact check things often (the times i did not but posted from memory I sometimes - and rightly - have been corrected if it could not be proven after all). Referencing your sources makes it easy to fact check or study the details of the matter at hand.

Anthony Watts is not a shill, as far as I can tell. He openly gives a forum to Chuck DeVore who according to Fox News is a vice president with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank based in Austin, Texas.[2] The organization was founded in 1989 by James R. Leininger, who sought intellectual support for his education reform ideas, including public school vouchers.[3] Projects of the organization include Right on Crime, which is focused on criminal justice reform,[4] and Fueling Freedom, which seeks to "explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels"[5] by expressing views skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[6]

In 2015, TPPF had total revenue of $10.8 million.[7] Donors to the organization include energy companies Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other fossil fuel interests.[8] The stated mission of TPPF is "to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach."[9]

Academically sound research, building a case for the forgotten morals of fossil fuels while going against scientific consensus.
Well have I ever. Academically sound research IS science. And what DeVore gets paid for by Chevron and ExxonMobil is not.

There is nothing wrong with taking a skeptical view of climate research if that view is underpinned by facts, relevant data or reasonable explanations. But his article does not reveal sources (all links point to Fox news' own Energy root page); it does however insult and insinuate in almost every sentence.

Those who are in the right do what's right. If you can expose faults with facts, that's all you need.
Insult is the weapon of those who cannot stave their opinions with facts. It says nothing about the target.

Of course DeVore was not the only one reporting about Georgetown. This or this for instance are much more balanced views.

What is true in Georgetown?
The base electricity rate will rise by $4.80, while a kWh is 2 to 3 cents up on the average free market price in Texas, depending on usage. To arrive at the $1200 extra DeVore projects the average Georgetown home needs to use about 57,000 kWh yearly.
Guess what - they don't.
Georgetown does have a problem, but it is nothing like Fox news and Exxon want you to believe.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The cost is?

According to Obama his carbon credit scam was supposed to bring in 600 billion dollars per year.
Why don't you people know this?
Obama said it best, "under my plan energy prices will skyrocket".