What will happen when our pets become critically endangered?

[Scrubber_steve]

@Scrubber_steve It seemed fairly obvious to me, but my apologies for being unclear. You stated earlier that it's not possible to attribute any of the recent warming to anything but natural variability. What I'm asking for is a single (or ideally a few) peer-reviewed paper(s) published, say, in the 21st century that specifically reach that conclusion. My B.S. detector starts beeping when I ask someone to simply copy and paste the URL of a single peer-reviewed source and I get 1000+ word response filled with graphs and complex explanations and no citations that aren't personal blogs.

One piece of factual evidence I can provide without any effort at all, to at least prove how baseless the IPCCs un-scientific statement that - "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" is

how on Earth could they ever come to that conclusion when they don't know if an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 from doubling CO2, will result in 1.5C of warming or 4.5C of warming?

LOL

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I stocked up on sunscreen (SPF 1,000,000) so pretty sure I’m good.

nah, you won't need such a strong sunscreen. They say that the temperature around the tropics to sub tropics doesn't change that much from a full blown iceage to a non-iceage climate.
Most of the change is at the poles & then mid latitudes. But you may want to sell your snow skis just in case we hit that 12.5 x CO2 any time soon

 

[biophilia]

you're the one making the assertion that it can be prooved, so you put up the evidence

We're back to the same impasse here. I'm not the one making the assertion. I'm just some random guy on the internet who glues animals to rocks and puts them in glass boxes like some sort of lunatic.

The assertion is that of:

Every National Science Academy on the planet:
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1261

IPCC AR5 WG1 on page 2:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

The U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment:
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

The Ribes et al. (2016) paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6

The Berkeley Earth results paper:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf

The D.R. Feldman et al. (2015) paper:
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

The Seinfeld et al. (2016) paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889348/

The Marvel et al. (2015) paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2888.epdf

The Huber et al. (2011) paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327.epdf

The Stolpe et al. (2017) paper:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0803.1

The K. Haustein et al. (2017) paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14828-5

The Marcott et al. (2013) paper:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

And on, and on, and on.

And on.

And on.

And on...

An adequate critique of those findings would require, at a minimum, a number of significant papers that have passed the muster of peer review. A 1000+ word message board posting spattered with graphs and links to blog posts simply will not do it.

Again. Do you have a link to even a singe peer-reviewed paper challenging the assertion and large body of evidence that anthropogenic gasses are responsible for most of the warming in the instrument record in recent decades? The burden of proof is pretty squarely on your shoulders here since you're making the claim that the above papers, scientific organizations, and thousands of others are incorrect.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

We're back to the same impasse here. I'm not the one making the assertion. I'm just some random guy on the internet who glues animals to rocks and puts them in glass boxes like some sort of lunatic.

The assertion is that of:

Every National Science Academy on the planet:
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1261

IPCC AR5 WG1 on page 2:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

The U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment:
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

The Ribes et al. (2016) paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6

The Berkeley Earth results paper:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf

The D.R. Feldman et al. (2015) paper:
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

The Seinfeld et al. (2016) paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889348/

The Marvel et al. (2015) paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2888.epdf

The Huber et al. (2011) paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327.epdf

The Stolpe et al. (2017) paper:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0803.1

The K. Haustein et al. (2017) paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14828-5

The Marcott et al. (2013) paper:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

And on, and on, and on.

And on.

And on.

And on...

An adequate critique of those findings would require, at a minimum, a number of significant papers that have passed the muster of peer review. A 1000+ word message board posting spattered with graphs and links to blog posts simply will not do it.

Again. Do you have a link to even a singe peer-reviewed paper challenging the assertion and large body of evidence that anthropogenic gasses are responsible for most of the warming in the instrument record in recent decades? The burden of proof is pretty squarely on your shoulders here since you're making the claim that the above papers, scientific organizations, and thousands of others are incorrect.

Look, the first two links are not providing any proof at all. They are simply endorsing the un-scientific statement of the IPCC that I prooved cannot possible be accurate because they don't know how much warming there'll be for a doubling of co2.

If there is any proof as you see in those other links, fine. But cut n paste it because I'm not reading through them all looking for it.

 

[Ishaithecoralguy]

Its definitely a dread for me

 

[Ishaithecoralguy]

Wow that got political real quick. Its pretty simple though. You trap energy in the form of photons and radiation with CO2 and the earth gets hotter.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.


11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.

13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming?This is one of my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth — due to natural changes in cloud cover — are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an “external” source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.

14) So, What Could Cause Natural Cloud Changes? I think small, long-term changes in atmospheric and oceanic flow patterns can cause ~1% changes in how much sunlight is let in by clouds to warm the Earth. This is all that is required to cause global warming or cooling. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficiently accurate cloud measurements to determine whether this is the primary cause of warming in the last 30 to 50 years.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Wow that got political real quick. Its pretty simple though. You trap energy in the form of photons and radiation with CO2 and the earth gets hotter.

Yes, thats how simple it can be. But how much hotter? Or hotter at all?

Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physist, while working for NASA analysed all the weather balloon radiosonde data going back to the late 1950s. Literally millions of balloons.
What he found was, that despite the increase in atmospheric CO2 THE EARTH'S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS had not increased.
Or in other words, the greenhouse effect had not increased. The minor increase in radiative forcing from CO2 had been off set from a decrease in atmospheric water vapour in the upper troposphere.

He believes that the minor changes in warmth experiences is caused by minor changes in total cloud coverage.

Ya just don't know what can occur.

 

[samnaz]

you almost lost me at "global warming since it a mainstream established fact"... but in general, yes, it would appear as though in my lifetime I will see most, if not all, coral reefs die. I'm doing everything within my power to slow this from happening but the truth is, most people don't give enough of a crap to DO something. It makes me sick imagining what life will be left on earth in 50-100 years. At the rate that we humans are destroying, we are looking at another mass species extinction... and I wonder what it will take for us to realize we are a part of nature. When the coral reefs die and the fisheries collapse (something that many of us rely on for sustenance and life) it affects the entire ocean ecosystem catastrophically.

 

[kschweer]

Guys and gals sorry to have to do this but this thread has kinda ran it's course going pretty political we feel it best to be closed.