Settled Science? Don’t know, just asking. There are lots of conflicting scientific opinions. Makes it confusing for the layperson.
Same guy 6 years later. Hedging his bets?
or just catching up to these guys? Don’t know. Just asking.
Who decides if not Mother Nature?
If she is not sending MAJOR(cat 3,4,5) hurricanes our way to make landfall in the US for 8 years then she is not sending MAJOR hurricanes our way and the weather/climate can NOT be said to be getting more extreme, can it?. Why isn’t it that simple? (a similar exercise could be done for other extreme weather types)
Here is the dataset bought and paid for by the US taxpayer.
Should we be afraid of that data or embrace it?
The energy of 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day is how much energy imbalance the earth is absorbing because of global warming. This imbalance was explained by Dr. James Hansen, one of the world's foremost climate scientists at the TED Conference in Long Beach, California
We are told that we are ‘supercharging’ our atmosphere and putting it ‘on steroids’.
And yet despite this vast energy imbalance now the worst year for hurricanes making landfall in the US was 1886. You have the dataset. Check it out. Two of them were MAJORS. We all agree that it was colder then and that there was less than 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere at that time. Does it ever make you wonder what the atmosphere was ‘on’ back in the day when that record occurred? And why wasn’t that record broken during the ‘hottest decade ever’ with the highest level of CO2 concentration seen in x thousand years? Could it be that CO2 is not as powerful a driver of climate as we have been led to believe?
A similar exercise could be done for other examples of extreme weather/climate.
The IPCC says, in their AR5 SPM, that they are 95% (a change from 90% in AR4 2007) certain that humans are at fault for contemporary global warming/climate change even as they reduce the lower bound of their estimated range for climate sensitivity (CS) to 1.5C from the 2.0C they used in their AR4 2007 report while leaving the upper bound stuck at 4C. That means the range has widened in AR5 which means that they are less certain of the results they present in AR5. Can we all share a chuckle at how less certain has become more certain? And why did they do that? If they didn’t say they were 95% certain they would almost certainly (95%?) be signing their own pink slips. Imagine if they actually said what they meant or meant what they said and informed the world that they are less certain of their results now than they were in 2007. After billions and billions were spent on their climate models. The IPCC is the new magic act on the world stage. Now you see less certain and now you don’t. Voila! Apparently 1984 has arrived at the IPCC. Less certain is more certain. They actually mean to say that they are more certain they are less certain. Clear?
Here is a list of some recent research into climate sensitivity some of which occurred after the AR5 cutoff date. The 1.5C mentioned above may turn out to be too high according to reality. Do we have to wait another 6 years for the IPCC to revise their estimates downward again?
And what of the climate models? They operate on algorithms that produce warming as CO2 increases. Only problem is someone forgot to inform Mother Nature about the algorithm and she slipped them a curve which the models failed to anticipate and they fell off the catwalk. Billions and billions for models that don’t work. Can we all share a wince or a Bart Simpson Doh! over that one?
Has the starring role accorded to CO2 in the climate drama been miscast such that CO2 would be better placed in a bit part or perhaps not be included in the cast at all?
What to do? Disband the IPCC and stop all the unnecessary efforts to reduce human CO2 emissions. It was all based on a false theory.
We owe CO2 an apology.
