Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns

[ctxa]

Let the ones in charge do whatever they consider right. 

 

I couldn't care less about Co2 emissions, not that I understand it either. So whatever.

[Chomper Higgot]

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

How is it dishonest to expect a little transparently? Were the authors of the 38 papers not allowed to respond the the claims, and if so, why is that not included?

 

Katharine Hayhoe, (God love her, what she must have suffered with that name) along with being an "Atmospheric Scientist" is a Professor of Political Science and CEO of ATMOS Research and Consulting. She may be exactly right about everything she says, but she makes her living from climate change.

 

Do you not see that as a conflict of interest?

All professionals in any field of expertise make their living from the field in which they are employed as experts.

 

If you feel that creates a conflict of interest feel free to ignore the advice of any medical doctor you consult.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

Typical semantic deflection re climate change denialist.k 

Those who have at least a reasonable understanding of the scientific processes should be aware that all the various disciplines of science require precise definitions of the words used to describe all things, concepts, causes and effects, and so on, that are observed and addressed.

 

Describing those who are skeptical about the bad effects of rising CO2 levels, as 'Denialists', is not even remotely scientific. Skepticism is essential for science to progress.

 

However, I understand that most people require a religion of some sort to help them overcome the traumas and anxieties of life. Creating the illusion that, by reducing CO2 emissions, we will avoid future climatic catastrophes, is the new religion which can have a comforting placebo effect.

 

However, in order to maintain the placebo effect, dissenters or skeptics have to be stopped. In the past, those who questioned the validity or interpretation of the scriptures were often burned alive at the stake, or flogged and tortured.
At least we have made some progress since those days. We no longer 'burn at the stake' those who question the new religion of AGW. We just sack them from their job and/or insult them using terms like 'denialist'.

 

An example is the story of Dr. Peter Ridd who was a Physicist at the James Cook University in north Queensland. He dared to criticize the soundness of some of his colleagues research methods regarding the Great Barrier Reef. He was consequently sacked by the university, took the matter to court, won his case, and was awarded $1.2 million in damages. However, the university appealed the decision, and the award was overturned.

 

Peter Ridd has now taken the case to the High Court and the case continues. Here's the story.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/sacked-queensland-professor-scores-first-win-in-high-court-appeal-20210211-p571nm.html
 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Those who have at least a reasonable understanding of the scientific processes should be aware that all the various disciplines of science require precise definitions of the words used to describe all things, concepts, causes and effects, and so on, that are observed and addressed.

 

Describing those who are skeptical about the bad effects of rising CO2 levels, as 'Denialists', is not even remotely scientific. Skepticism is essential for science to progress.

 

However, I understand that most people require a religion of some sort to help them overcome the traumas and anxieties of life. Creating the illusion that, by reducing CO2 emissions, we will avoid future climatic catastrophes, is the new religion which can have a comforting placebo effect.

 

However, in order to maintain the placebo effect, dissenters or skeptics have to be stopped. In the past, those who questioned the validity or interpretation of the scriptures were often burned alive at the stake, or flogged and tortured.
At least we have made some progress since those days. We no longer 'burn at the stake' those who question the new religion of AGW. We just sack them from their job and/or insult them using terms like 'denialist'.

 

An example is the story of Dr. Peter Ridd who was a Physicist at the James Cook University in north Queensland. He dared to criticize the soundness of some of his colleagues research methods regarding the Great Barrier Reef. He was consequently sacked by the university, took the matter to court, won his case, and was awarded $1.2 million in damages. However, the university appealed the decision, and the award was overturned.

 

Peter Ridd has now taken the case to the High Court and the case continues. Here's the story.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/sacked-queensland-professor-scores-first-win-in-high-court-appeal-20210211-p571nm.html
 

“Skepticism is essential for science to progress.”

 

It’s also employed as a tool of propaganda by the fossil fuel industry in their efforts to protect their business interests from environmentalists.

 

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Those who have at least a reasonable understanding of the scientific processes should be aware that all the various disciplines of science require precise definitions of the words used to describe all things, concepts, causes and effects, and so on, that are observed and addressed.

 

Describing those who are skeptical about the bad effects of rising CO2 levels, as 'Denialists', is not even remotely scientific. Skepticism is essential for science to progress.

 

However, I understand that most people require a religion of some sort to help them overcome the traumas and anxieties of life. Creating the illusion that, by reducing CO2 emissions, we will avoid future climatic catastrophes, is the new religion which can have a comforting placebo effect.

 

However, in order to maintain the placebo effect, dissenters or skeptics have to be stopped. In the past, those who questioned the validity or interpretation of the scriptures were often burned alive at the stake, or flogged and tortured.
At least we have made some progress since those days. We no longer 'burn at the stake' those who question the new religion of AGW. We just sack them from their job and/or insult them using terms like 'denialist'.

 

An example is the story of Dr. Peter Ridd who was a Physicist at the James Cook University in north Queensland. He dared to criticize the soundness of some of his colleagues research methods regarding the Great Barrier Reef. He was consequently sacked by the university, took the matter to court, won his case, and was awarded $1.2 million in damages. However, the university appealed the decision, and the award was overturned.

 

Peter Ridd has now taken the case to the High Court and the case continues. Here's the story.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/sacked-queensland-professor-scores-first-win-in-high-court-appeal-20210211-p571nm.html
 

Thanks for not responding to my specific points.

What makes your current reply particularly ludicrious is this for you:

 

Describing those who are skeptical about the bad effects of rising CO2 levels, as 'Denialists', is not even remotely scientific.

"Skepticism is essential for science to progress.

However, I understand that most people require a religion of some sort to help them overcome the traumas and anxieties of life. Creating the illusion that, by reducing CO2 emissions, we will avoid future climatic catastrophes, is the new religion which can have a comforting placebo effect."

 

On the one hand you claim to be sceptical. But on the other you characterize as an illusion the belief that CO2 causes warming. Which means you're not a sceptic at all, but a believer.

And to further post on what you wrote before. It's absolutely settled science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional on this score.
 

 

[VincentRJ]

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All professionals in any field of expertise make their living from the field in which they are employed as experts.

 

If you feel that creates a conflict of interest feel free to ignore the advice of any medical doctor you consult.

 

 

That's a good example because of the great diversity of medical opinions due to the complexity of the contributing causes of any particular ailment, which is similar to the climate change situation. If you have faith in your doctor, then there will likely be a strong placebo effect, so you might as well take his advice. If you have any reason to doubt your doctor's assessment, then seek an another opinion from another doctor, which is what many people do.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That's a good example because of the great diversity of medical opinions due to the complexity of the contributing causes of any particular ailment, which is similar to the climate change situation. If you have faith in your doctor, then there will likely be a strong placebo effect, so you might as well take his advice. If you have any reason to doubt your doctor's assessment, then seek an another opinion from another doctor, which is what many people do.

Yes, seek expert advice, don’t go looking for a diagnosis by conducting internet searches and then convincing yourself you know more than people who have actually done the real study, the real research and have real expertise.

 

[VincentRJ]

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes, seek expert advice, don’t go looking for a diagnosis by conducting internet searches and then convincing yourself you know more than people who have actually done the real study, the real research and have real expertise.

 

I think you mean, 'Don't go looking for diagnoses from blogs on the internet written by non-experts.'

One should always check the integrity of the source. The internet was initially created so scientists could share their research and avoid unnecessary duplication.

 

I always consider alternative opinions by the experts in any field I'm enquiring about. When you do this, you become aware of the complexity of the issue and the uncertainty that results.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

On the one hand you claim to be sceptical. But on the other you characterize as an illusion the belief that CO2 causes warming. Which means you're not a sceptic at all, but a believer.

 

Excellent example of how your belief has distorted your interpretation of what I've written. I've never written that CO2 is not a 'so-called' greenhouse gas, nor that it does not cause at least some degree of warming, depending on its concentration.

 

The illusion I refer to, is the belief that CO2 levels represent a control knob, and that we can reduce the frequency and intensity of extreme and damaging weather events simply by reducing our CO2 emissions.

 

I live in Australia, which is well-known as a land of droughts and floods. The last major flood which I personally experienced, having to wade knee-deep in flood waters and travel by canoe along flooded roads in order to get back to my home, was in early 2011. The media at the time were claiming it was the worst flood on record and an example of the effects of rising CO2 levels, as they tend to claim about all natural disasters.

 

However, after doing a search on the internet, I came across the following BOM site which shows a record of past flood heights in the area of Brisbane where I lived. The attached graph shows that the flood heights in 2010-11 were not even close to the worst on record. They were the 7th worst on record. The two worst floods by far, occurred in 1841 and 1893, well before human-caused CO2 emissions began increasing.
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you mean, 'Don't go looking for diagnoses from blogs on the internet written by non-experts.'

One should always check the integrity of the source. The internet was initially created so scientists could share their research and avoid unnecessary duplication.

 

I always consider alternative opinions by the experts in any field I'm enquiring about. When you do this, you become aware of the complexity of the issue and the uncertainty that results.

You should enroll at a university, do a PhD in the subject, publish your thesis.

 

There might be a Nobel Gong in it for you.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Excellent example of how your belief has distorted your interpretation of what I've written. I've never written that CO2 is not a 'so-called' greenhouse gas, nor that it does not cause at least some degree of warming, depending on its concentration.

 

The illusion I refer to, is the belief that CO2 levels represent a control knob, and that we can reduce the frequency and intensity of extreme and damaging weather events simply by reducing our CO2 emissions.

 

I live in Australia, which is well-known as a land of droughts and floods. The last major flood which I personally experienced, having to wade knee-deep in flood waters and travel by canoe along flooded roads in order to get back to my home, was in early 2011. The media at the time were claiming it was the worst flood on record and an example of the effects of rising CO2 levels, as they tend to claim about all natural disasters.

 

However, after doing a search on the internet, I came across the following BOM site which shows a record of past flood heights in the area of Brisbane where I lived. The attached graph shows that the flood heights in 2010-11 were not even close to the worst on record. They were the 7th worst on record. The two worst floods by far, occurred in 1841 and 1893, well before human-caused CO2 emissions began increasing.
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
 

 

You are correct, Australia is well known as a land of floods and droughts, it’s also known for some pretty poor news media.

 

An erroneous claim in the media, let alone the Australian media, isn’t even close to drawing the scientific consensus on climate change into question.

 

But it is an example of your use of poor and misleading arguments.

 

Media reports and science are not the same thing.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

25 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you mean, 'Don't go looking for diagnoses from blogs on the internet written by non-experts.'

One should always check the integrity of the source. The internet was initially created so scientists could share their research and avoid unnecessary duplication.

 

I always consider alternative opinions by the experts in any field I'm enquiring about. When you do this, you become aware of the complexity of the issue and the uncertainty that results.

“I think you mean, 'Don't go looking for diagnoses from blogs on the internet written by non-experts.'”

 

If I had meant to say that I would have said it.

 

If you are going to respond then address what I have said, not what for your own convenience you wish I had said.

[VincentRJ]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should enroll at a university, do a PhD in the subject, publish your thesis.

 

There might be a Nobel Gong in it for you.

Which disciple would you recommend I get my PhD in?  Meteorology, Atmospheric Dynamics, Atmospheric Physics, Atmospheric Chemistry, Historical Climatology, Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Paleoclimatology, Biochemistry, Mathematical Modelling??? They are all disciplines, plus many more, that are involved in climatology. ????

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

Which disciple would you recommend I get my PhD in?  Meteorology, Atmospheric Dynamics, Atmospheric Physics, Atmospheric Chemistry, Historical Climatology, Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Paleoclimatology, Biochemistry, Mathematical Modelling??? They are all disciplines, plus many more, that are involved in climatology. ????

It’s a difficult choice.

 

I would suggest a discipline in which you feel your internet searches have provided you with the deepest expertise and knowledge.

 

Or, on second thoughts, the next to deepest expertise and knowledge.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for not responding to my specific points.

What makes your current reply particularly ludicrious is this for you:

 

Describing those who are skeptical about the bad effects of rising CO2 levels, as 'Denialists', is not even remotely scientific.

"Skepticism is essential for science to progress.

However, I understand that most people require a religion of some sort to help them overcome the traumas and anxieties of life. Creating the illusion that, by reducing CO2 emissions, we will avoid future climatic catastrophes, is the new religion which can have a comforting placebo effect."

 

On the one hand you claim to be sceptical. But on the other you characterize as an illusion the belief that CO2 causes warming. Which means you're not a sceptic at all, but a believer.

And to further post on what you wrote before. It's absolutely settled science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional on this score.

 

His point is that Earth’s climate is the singular, by far most complex chemical/physical system anywhere in the known universe.  The idea that CO2 (where(!) is the subscript function, TV?) is a single control knob for the climate is not scientific.  And he is correct. Popular attempts to separate the world into deniers and 97% proved is also not very scientific.

 

[VincentRJ]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An erroneous claim in the media, let alone the Australian media, isn’t even close to drawing the scientific consensus on climate change into question.

 

But it is an example of your use of poor and misleading arguments.

 

Media reports and science are not the same thing.

 

 Try reading more carefully what I wrote. I'll repeat it for you to make it easier. This is what I wrote:

 

"The media at the time were claiming it was the worst flood on record and an example of the effects of rising CO2 levels, as they tend to claim about all natural disasters."

 

Erroneous claims occur frequently in all media, all scientific disciplines, and from all individuals. I would never change my views as a result of a one-off, erroneous claim. Even Albert Einstein made mistakes.????

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, rabas said:

 

His point is that Earth’s climate is the singular, by far most complex chemical/physical system anywhere in the known universe.  The idea that CO2 (where(!) is the subscript function, TV?) is a single control knob for the climate is not scientific.  And he is correct. Popular attempts to separate the world into deniers and 97% proved is also not very scientific.

 

I’m not sure if you’re aware of the statement that ‘CO2 is a greenhouse gas’.

 

Well there are others and they are discussed widely.

 

The reference to the ‘single control knob’ is in itself a misrepresentation of the scientific consensus on climate change and the basis of the strawman arguments that hang off of it..

 

 

[VincentRJ]

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reference to the ‘single control knob’ is in itself a misrepresentation of the scientific consensus on climate change and the basis of the strawman arguments that hang off of it..

 

Would you care to explain why it is a 'straw man' argument? As I understand, reducing CO2 emissions is the main focus and the main reason for the change to renewable sources of energy, because rising CO2 levels are claimed to be the main driver of the current, modest warming. Have I got that wrong?

 

Water vapour is by far the most prominent greenhouse gas, but the alarmist argument is that increases in water vapour result from increases in CO2 levels which is the initial cause of the warming which creates more evaporation. In other words, there is a positive feed-back. Reducing CO2 emissions is claimed to reduce the warming which in turn reduces the amount of water vapour, and reduces the amount of methane emitted from a warming tundra or permafrost. Have I got that wrong?

 

There is also an understandable concern about deforestation, because forests act as a carbon sink and can help to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, as well as preserving the natural wild-life and producing oxygen. There are also environmental concerns about pollution from toxic chemicals and waste matter such as plastic bags, which is a very reasonable and sensible concern.

 

Recycling is going to be a major problem in the future when millions of solar panels, windmills and batteries, have served their purpose and need to be replaced. I wonder what environmental damage that will cause? ????

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Would you care to explain why it is a 'straw man' argument? As I understand, reducing CO2 emissions is the main focus and the main reason for the change to renewable sources of energy, because rising CO2 levels are claimed to be the main driver of the current, modest warming. Have I got that wrong?

 

Water vapour is by far the most prominent greenhouse gas, but the alarmist argument is that increases in water vapour result from increases in CO2 levels which is the initial cause of the warming which creates more evaporation. In other words, there is a positive feed-back. Reducing CO2 emissions is claimed to reduce the warming which in turn reduces the amount of water vapour, and reduces the amount of methane emitted from a warming tundra or permafrost. Have I got that wrong?

 

There is also an understandable concern about deforestation, because forests act as a carbon sink and can help to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, as well as preserving the natural wild-life and producing oxygen. There are also environmental concerns about pollution from toxic chemicals and waste matter such as plastic bags, which is a very reasonable and sensible concern.

 

Recycling is going to be a major problem in the future when millions of solar panels, windmills and batteries, have served their purpose and need to be replaced. I wonder what environmental damage that will cause? ????

I didn’t say it was a Strawman argument, I said it’s the basis of Strawman arguments.

[Eric Loh]

Climate change will be debated forever. If you believe NASA and 97% of climate scientists, mankind is indeed the cause for earth's changing environment. The pro coal and oil politicians will never bring science into the equation. 

[VincentRJ]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I didn’t say it was a Strawman argument, I said it’s the basis of Strawman arguments.

 

Okay! Would you care to explain then, why it is the basis of Strawman arguments?

[Chomper Higgot]

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Okay! Would you care to explain then, why it is the basis of Strawman arguments?

Simple:

 

Arguments resting on the patently false assertion that “CO2  is a single control knob for the climate” are constructed of straw strawmen are made of.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Simple:

 

Arguments resting on the patently false assertion that “CO2  is a single control knob for the climate” are constructed of straw strawmen are made of.

 

 

Can you give me a list of the various control knobs that are not related to CO2 emissions? I didn't actually write that CO2 emissions was a single control knob, but I'd be interested to learn what the other control knobs are, which are unrelated to CO2 emissions. ????

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a difficult choice.

 

I would suggest a discipline in which you feel your internet searches have provided you with the deepest expertise and knowledge.

 

Or, on second thoughts, the next to deepest expertise and knowledge.

 

Since I'm a very practical and unbiased sort of person, I think I would prefer to do a PhD on the psychological and economical reasons for the alarm about CO2 emissions. ????

 

I'll give you a preview of my current hypothesis.
There are many sites where discussions about climate change reveal the polar-opposite points of view where posters often engage in Ad Hominem attacks to get their point across, and that includes both the skeptics and the alarmists.

 

I feel I am able to stand back from that in order to observe what is really happening, and sometimes that gives me an insight.

 

For example, one claim that many skeptics make is the economic cost of renewables is not justified. It raises electricity prices, creates additional problems due to the intermittency of supply, and makes it more difficult for poor, undeveloped countries to develop.

 

However, a positive aspect of renewable energy is a reduction of the 'real' pollutants in the atmosphere, which affect human health; the advancement of more efficient technologies such as electric vehicles which are cheaper to service and produce no toxic emissions which can be a major problem in densely populated cities; and a reduction of the risk of fossil fuel supplies becoming scarce and much more expensive in the distant future, especially as currently undeveloped countries use increasing amounts of fossil fuels as they develop, and developed countries also use increasing amounts as they increase the average prosperity of their citizens.

 

The above scenario can explain why the alarm about CO2 emissions has to be exaggerated, and sometimes include totally false statements, in order to motivate organizations and governments to take action in the switch to renewables. This is politics and religion at work.

 

So why am I skeptical about the benefits of this scenario, you might ask? Here's why.
Whilst the cost of changing the energy system to renewables is enormous, the cost of protecting citizens in all countries from the recurrence of natural disasters which have occurred regularly in the past, is even more enormous.

 

Imagine if the media were to focus on the disastrous weather events that have occurred during the past couple of thousand years, and every time there was a flood or hurricane or drought, the media were to write about the known history of such events in the area, and instead of claiming the disastrous weather event was the worst on record, or the worst in a century, or the worst ever, they instead revealed the truth about the known history of extreme weather events in the area.

 

Wouldn't we have thousands of Greta Thunberg types protesting? 'How dare you allow people to build homes in flood plains, and build flimsy shacks in areas subject to frequent cyclones.' 'How dare you ignore the history of extreme weather events, and pretend we can solve the problem by reducing our CO2 emissions.' 'How dare you build roads and highways below previous, known flood levels.' ????

 

I think the economy would collapse.
 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Since I'm a very practical and unbiased sort of person, I think I would prefer to do a PhD on the psychological and economical reasons for the alarm about CO2 emissions. ????

 

I'll give you a preview of my current hypothesis.
There are many sites where discussions about climate change reveal the polar-opposite points of view where posters often engage in Ad Hominem attacks to get their point across, and that includes both the skeptics and the alarmists.

 

I feel I am able to stand back from that in order to observe what is really happening, and sometimes that gives me an insight.

 

For example, one claim that many skeptics make is the economic cost of renewables is not justified. It raises electricity prices, creates additional problems due to the intermittency of supply, and makes it more difficult for poor, undeveloped countries to develop.

 

However, a positive aspect of renewable energy is a reduction of the 'real' pollutants in the atmosphere, which affect human health; the advancement of more efficient technologies such as electric vehicles which are cheaper to service and produce no toxic emissions which can be a major problem in densely populated cities; and a reduction of the risk of fossil fuel supplies becoming scarce and much more expensive in the distant future, especially as currently undeveloped countries use increasing amounts of fossil fuels as they develop, and developed countries also use increasing amounts as they increase the average prosperity of their citizens.

 

The above scenario can explain why the alarm about CO2 emissions has to be exaggerated, and sometimes include totally false statements, in order to motivate organizations and governments to take action in the switch to renewables. This is politics and religion at work.

 

So why am I skeptical about the benefits of this scenario, you might ask? Here's why.
Whilst the cost of changing the energy system to renewables is enormous, the cost of protecting citizens in all countries from the recurrence of natural disasters which have occurred regularly in the past, is even more enormous.

 

Imagine if the media were to focus on the disastrous weather events that have occurred during the past couple of thousand years, and every time there was a flood or hurricane or drought, the media were to write about the known history of such events in the area, and instead of claiming the disastrous weather event was the worst on record, or the worst in a century, or the worst ever, they instead revealed the truth about the known history of extreme weather events in the area.

 

Wouldn't we have thousands of Greta Thunberg types protesting? 'How dare you allow people to build homes in flood plains, and build flimsy shacks in areas subject to frequent cyclones.' 'How dare you ignore the history of extreme weather events, and pretend we can solve the problem by reducing our CO2 emissions.' 'How dare you build roads and highways below previous, known flood levels.' ????

 

I think the economy would collapse.
 

Let me know when you publish.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Can you give me a list of the various control knobs that are not related to CO2 emissions? I didn't actually write that CO2 emissions was a single control knob, but I'd be interested to learn what the other control knobs are, which are unrelated to CO2 emissions. ????

Let’s be clear, I don’t owe you any lists.

[Moonlover]

On 3/19/2021 at 7:46 PM, GreasyFingers said:

This report must out of date. The buzz words are now climate change, not global warming.

Global warming and climate change are different phenomena. 

 

“Global warming” refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. “Climate change” refers to the increasing changes in the measures of climate over a long period of time – including precipitation, temperature, and wind patterns''.

[GreasyFingers]

59 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Global warming and climate change are different phenomena. 

 

“Global warming” refers to the rise in global temperatures due mainly to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. “Climate change” refers to the increasing changes in the measures of climate over a long period of time – including precipitation, temperature, and wind patterns''.

That is why they changed the buzz words as they cannot prove that greenhouse gases cause a rise in temperature. The climate (whatever your definition is) will always change, some for the good, some for the bad, but it is just nature having her fun.

[GreasyFingers]

On 3/19/2021 at 10:30 PM, placeholder said:

 

I don't understand how anyone with any critical sense could construe such a cliaim about a  travelogue about a sandbar of the coast of long island. Do you know that there's such a thing as the internet. And in just a minute or two you could actually find out why it's nonsense.

Fire Island is  a big sandbar that didn't even exist until the mid 19th century. And now it's eroding. Which is why there's a 1.5 billion dollar project in the works to keep it from  being washed away. It's str

 Major Milestone Reached for Fire Island to Montauk Point (FIMP) Project

https://zeldin.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/major-milestone-reached-fire-island-montauk-point-fimp-project

Why do you think a local phenomenon like a sandbar that has anything to do with rising seas or rather the seas not rising.?You might want to look at this to see one way actual scientists measure sea levels: 

What is Jason-3?

Jason-3 is a satellite mission that supports scientific, commercial and practical applications related to sea level rise, ocean circulation, and climate change. Jason-3 follows the current operational altimeter satellite, Jason-2, in maintaining satellite altimetry observations of global sea surface height. Jason-3 is an international cooperative mission in which NOAA is partnering with the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES, France’s governmental space agency), European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Jason-3 will make highly detailed measurements of sea surface height, which is a measure used to study sea level rise—a critical factor in understanding Earth’s dynamic climate.

https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/jason-3/mission.html

 

 

 

Another poster has just brought me back to this topic so sorry for being so long the reply to you.

I hope you are up to date on Geodesy and not taken in by a pretty graphic. The Geoid is a mathematical model that approximates mean sea level. As the graphic shows it goes up and down depending on where you are. Sea level is not an equi-potential surface as the are big variations with latitude and longitude. Thus they have have the Geoid to give an approximation of an equi-potential surface.

The problem with the Geoid over time is that they change the datum center for calculations.

[Yellowtail]

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

How do you know that they weren't allowed to respond? Scientific journals do allow for responses.

No, she doesn't make her living from climate change. she makes her living as a climatologist.

Are you suggesting that the conclusions of that paper were false and that other climatologists who reviewed or read it said nothing also out of self-interest? Aspersions like yours  only work via conspiracy theories.

 

Please don't make things up. I did not say the 38 were not allowed to respond, I asked why, if they were allowed to respond their response was not included. No need to attack me for asking, you either know or you don't know. 

 

She makes her living as a Professor of Political Science at Texas Tech, she apparently also does research as a "Atmospheric Scientist" which I assume her PhD in Political Science qualifies her for. She is also CEO of a consulting firm specializing in climate change.

 

No, I'm not suggesting the conclusions of her paper are wrong. But where did it say the paper was reviewed by other climatologists? From the article, it seemed to be a report based on her research. And that the response of the 38 are not mentioned in the article I think is suspect. 

 

I do know the "97% of climatologists agree" that the media regurgitates ad-nauseum is a lie.