The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[niky]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Huh? We understand the basics very well indeed, and we continue to learn. That is how science works.

Indeed. People will point to climate models not being perfect. No model is ever really perfect. But you don't need a perfect computer model to tell you that when your car hits a brick wall, something will break.

And these models are not static. The fact that we keep working in correction factors and revising models means that scientists are taking this seriously, and that they do take into account factors that deniers keep saying they DON'T.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth...climate-models

Again, a work in progress. But no matter what level of complexity you model at, and no matter how many additional factors are added in, they all agree that the Earth is warming and that this is a continuing trend.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Since the AGW community is the most cherry picking of cherry pickers to ever pick cherries.
NOAA just got caught cherry picking warmer temperature data last month.

[citation needed]

2017 was the second hottest year on record. (and the warmest with NO El Nino. 2016 was a record El Nino year.)

Several different organizations track global temperatures. And all show the same general trend.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Whether (weather) the globe is warming or not, we have to end the use of fossil fuels if man is to move forward.

The Paris Agreements do little to mitigate the output of CO2 and cripples the world economies in the process. Better to use our industrial output to find the solution to the next industrial age. That solution is nuclear power.

See, that's the debate we should be having in this thread.

I'm of two minds about it. Basic physics and economics say mitigation/elimination is impossible without economic upheaval.

But there have been some encouraging advancements in carbon sequestration.

That said, it often feels like the task is akin to pissing into the wind with your mouth open...

[freebeard]

See, that's the debate we should be having in this thread.

Oil vs nuclear? I'm an advocate for Moon power. And facing downwind.

Modelling can now take advantage of Big Data (from space!), and modelling algorithms evolve. An example is OpenVDB.

Low tech: terra preta on a massive scale and reforestation
Industrial tech: Thermal_depolymerization — same thing in a test tube
Nano tech: Metamaterials — there's plenty of room at the bottom.

It nice that astrophysics is coming around slowly. This appeared on Youtube, but jakobnev won't see it because he's over in the Unicorn Corral, beating a drum there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe0jgBqWjKI

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by niky

Several different organizations track global temperatures. And all show the same general trend....

That they are all cherry picking, manipulating, falsifying or fabricating evidence.

According to the pew research centers 2016 poll they found the vast majority of people believe politics and money is effecting the findings of the so called climate scientists.
According to their polling only the kool-aid drinking liberals can't see it.

Say the climate change models aren't perfect, no they aren't, they are completely wrong.
Saying they are not perfect implies they are generally correct, which is a flat out lie.

[freebeard]

I don't have a ready reference but Suspicious 0bservers regularly [quarterly?] shows a global temperature variation map that has two or more specific variations. The public is always shown the one with more red areas.

[jakobnev]

but jakobnev won't see it because he's over in the Unicorn Corral, beating a drum there.

Everyone is invited to come listen to The drum.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by niky

See, that's the debate we should be having in this thread.

I'm of two minds about it. Basic physics and economics say mitigation/elimination is impossible without economic upheaval.

Exactly. We have a much bigger problem than climate change. Which is man made. And is a big problem.
Energy underpins everything. Every service or goods starts with an energy input which is many hundreds of times the human energy input. If world per capita energy availability declines, world economy declines. And fossil fuel depletion happens. Oil has 35-50 years before it's price goes 4X and up. Gas for heat, 70 years. Except that we are now burning it up as fast as we can for electricity also. But our whole world economy is based on more, more, more.
.
Nuclear with water can only be walk away safe for a few days. If society crashes and workers don't show up for a month, the cores will explode and the cooling ponds will burn.
Molten fuel reactors can be built to be passively air cooled and walk way safe indefintely and would buy us an energy bridge for a couple hundred years to get the population back down to sustainable levels and develope a new and equitable non-growth world economic system that can function on much smaller and more intermittent energy from solar panels with a much gentler speed bump during the transitions.
Fossil fuel has built gigantic cities and populations all over the Northern hemisphere above 40*N which will be impossible to maintain with renewables and batteries after oil and gas begin to slip away. How many people lived on local food and biomass heat in Moscow in 1800? It will have to be closer to that many again by 2150. Certainly nowhere near the current population levels will be viable. Chicago, Tornoto, Montreal, Boston/ NYC/ Phili, ect will all be forced to suffer the same steady mass desertion to correct back to levels that natural solar flows can sustain without the immense added stored solar energy from fossil fuels.
.
Before any of the wishful thinkers reply that we just need to build more than more solar and wind, please understand that if you really start to run the numbers of the immense consumption that we are addicted to, there is no way that it can add up to what we need to replace all of this.

[freebeard]

...if you really start to run the numbers of the immense consumption that we are addicted to, there is no way that it can add up to what we need to replace all of this.

Education is too slow, we need an instantaneous elevation of conscientiousness.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Education is too STUPID, we need an instantaneous elevation of conscientiousness.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

History is 'littered' with mankind's follies...so, too, will be the future.

Yoda, you are. Like it, I do.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That they are all cherry picking, manipulating, falsifying or fabricating evidence.

According to the pew research centers 2016 poll they found the vast majority of people believe politics and money is effecting the findings of the so called climate scientists.
According to their polling only the kool-aid drinking liberals can't see it.

Watch the videos I posted a link to, please.

Pretty hard to have a conspiracy over 150+ years.

[freebeard]

I think I watched potholer54 before. All gasses in Part 1. At 0:24 he name-checks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey, who passed in 2009. The information is 10 years old.

Part 4 got to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" halfway through. I got confused about your intent in wanting us to watch and stopped. My favorite commentator addressed the issue last May but Youtube wanted me to see it this morning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzlN8SMlLjQ

He starts to ramble [bigly] at 20:40 or so, onto olive oil and his other pet peeves. I always learn new words, this time they were farrago and vicisitudin[al].

Originally Posted by myself

...a global temperature variation map that has two or more specific variations. The public is always shown the one with more red areas.

He did it again today, at 2:52. The publicized map has the caption cut off, the one he likes is captioned Temperature Departure from average with respect to 1981-2010 base period.

NOAA and NASA disagree as to whether 2017 is the 2nd or 3rd hottest year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQD79N3AuOU

Edit:
Here's a two-year-old interview with Freeman Dyson:

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

Models are good for understanding but not for prediction. He's a proponent of space weather. He's optimistic.