>Sounds like they should have phrased the amendment better.

Except that the amendment specifies that "climate change is real and not a hoax", which directly contradicts the previous position of Inhofe who wrote an entire book claiming it was a hoax:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493

It also directly contradicts Ted Cruz's previous position:

>The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened.

http://gizmodo.com/8-dumb-quotes-about-science-from-new-nasa-overseer-ted-1678965577

Rand Paul finally came around from his previous position that research was "not conclusive" and accepted the conclusion that scientists have been talking about for decades

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/204235-paul-science-behind-climate-change-not-conclusive#ixzz37Zc3t8uL

There was no problem with how the amendment was written and many Republicans either changed from their previous position or are lying in their support.

>We should be judging climate skeptics by the accuracy of their science, not their motives or employers

You can judge them by all of those. When it comes to accuracy this is what you find:

(1) http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

(2) http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

When it comes to funding this is what you find:

(3) http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc

When you test "their predictions" and motives you get a book and...

(5) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

(6) http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443/html

When I say I "doubt" humans survive I was sort of being tongue-in-cheek. There is absolutely no chance we’d survive that. There’s a popular book based on scientific modeling that lays out the devastation of only 6 degrees, and burning all known reserves would almost double that. Basically we have a “carbon budget” to stay within the 2 degrees that is generally seen as the upper limit of “safe”, and globally there is 5 times the amount of fossil fuels needed to hit that, plus you have massive carbon/methane deposits in the earth that would release. There would be no adapting.

Read the linked papers:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks to hit 560 ppm (double 1850-levels) late this century.

The potency of CO2 is expressed as "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity") in climate modeling. ECS expresses temperature increase at equilibrium from doubling CO2.
Due to climate's thermal inertia roughly half of a temperature change due to forcing is realized within 10 years, while 14-40% has still not arrived after a century. The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that ECS is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5" The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2 *.

Lower ECS ~1.5 better fit satellite era observations. ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models. AR5 WG1 stated "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (p.84). There is least uncertainty in temperature data after the start of satellite record ~1979, and for this timeframe ECS is estimated in 1.5-2 range [1], [2]
(In general, ECS-estimates vary based on temperature dataset**, choice of start- and end-dates, carbon-cycle*** modeling and warming attribution to other sources (overview)).
The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming. ECS=1.5 thus implies four times less warming from CO2 increases this century than current IPCC models!

Removing multi-decadal oscillations from data yields ECS 0.5-1.5. Natural oscillations with multi-year periods such as El Niño(11y), AMO(~60y) and PDO(~50-60y) dominate data on the timescale since 1850. Climate models do not accurately [ch1.2] model these oscillations. Removing oscillations mathematically to isolate underlying warming results in much lower climate sensitivity than in AR5: ECS ~1.5,TCR ~1.2 on 150 years of instrumental data, and ECS=0.6 on ~1000 years of proxy-data. These papers remove oscillations without the need to attribute causes to them, but as some of the oscillations removed will be solar-induced, the work is related to the sections below.

Human CO2-emissions coincide with the end of the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and with solar forcing transitioning from abnormally low to abnormally high. LIA had globally colder climate, coinciding with "Maunder" (1645-1715) and "Dalton"(1790-1830) solar minima. LIA average temperatures were 0.5-0.7 degC lower than Medieval Warm Period(MWP). 1850 at the end of LIA was unusually cold, is thus a poor baseline. Climate inertia should apply for solar as well as CO2-driven warming, implying a long post-LIA transient warming. Second half of the 20th century is the period of highest solar activity in the last 8000 years. A link between solar forcing changes and LIA/MWP has been found, so solar variation partially explaining modern warming up to the early 00ies is also plausible.

There is disagreement on if solar variability is "high variability" or "low variability"
Modeling solar activity is challenging because no direct measurements of solar variability exist prior to satellite record from ~1980, and because the record is "grafted" together from a data from many short-lived satellites, (review of challenges given in ch1).
CMIP5 uses a "low-variability" estimate of solar variation "PMOD" based on work by Kopp&Lean,
that has been strongly critized(ch9) for being an unverified theoretical model which implements alterations not recognized by the original experimental teams to drifts that are postulated but not verified. The alternative to "PMOD" are "high-variability" TSI-estimates such as that of Hoyt&Schatten that agree with "ACRIM" satellite data. Evidence that high-variability TSI-estimates are more accurate are:

• "low-variability" TSI-changes appear amplified 5-7 times in oceans,
  
• "high-variability" TSI is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient, and
  
• "low-variability" TSI-changes are too small to explain MWP/LIA temperature changes (AppendixB).
  
  Solar forcing variability is key to climate modeling, because just a 0.3% (5 W/m2) increase is enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (283 degC), a gain of ~0.2 degC per W/m2.
  "High-variability" TSI vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries, and could thus explain 50-80% of observed modern warming.
  
  CMIP5 models are running hot as solar activity falls, indicating that variability in their solar forcing estimate is too low. Because solar forcing and CO2-concentrations co-incident rise 1850-2000, underestimating climate solar sensitivity would wrongfully raise CO2-sensitivity (ECS),explaining why:
  
  
• as solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ), CMIP5 models have run warm. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a)(A comparison of temperature and "hot" CMIP5 model predictions can be found here)),
  
• larger-than-life ECS were needed to fit data pre-2000: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report), and why
  
• CMIP5 underestimates solar-induced LIA/MWP in hindcasts.
  
  Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS<1.5. "Hoyt&Schatten" TSI-estimate results in ECS of 0.44. Paleo-analysis of climate, CO2 and sun variability similarly found ECS=0.5.
  
  Persistent flaws in climate research are plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests.
  
  * "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) is temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually (before transients settle). TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 30-40% (or 0.5-0.8 degC). TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5.
  
  ** Estimates of ECS from data prior to 1979 require use of GIS/HADCRUT instrument records, adjusted by proprietary algorithms using climate models and homogenized which can create spurious warming. Audits of these datasets have uncovered data-quality issues, but datasets are generally hard to independently verify. The sea/surface global temperature record is only globally complete for the satellite era. A reason for skepticism is that recent warming is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges. Prior to~1880 proxies are used, but suffer from «the divergence problem» of not describing recent warming.
  
  ***Carbon cycle simulations indicate TCR below 1

Doesn't mean he didn't say it.


EDIT: He also wrote a book about it

Some good starting places:

• climate.nasa.gov Planet vital signs
  
• any Kevin Anderson lecture
  
• Vaclav Smil's "Energy Revolution? More Like a Crawl"
  
• Guy McPherson's big essay (I don't agree with it, but if you want to be up on the conversation, you should know it.)
  
• Trillionth Tonne countdown
  
• Climate Explorer(US only?) -- see how it will impact you locally
  
• Faster Than Expected blog
  
• Desdemona Despair
  
• Six Degrees by Mark Lynas (He compiled a bunch of scientific research and then basically sorted it by the degree it is predicted for -- a kind of roadmap of climate destruction.)

The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming, by David Wallace-Wells

https://www.amazon.com/Uninhabitable-Earth-Life-After-Warming/dp/0525576703

Sen. Inhofe went to speak after Sen. Peters, and the first thing he said was "Mr. President, I think Mrs. DeVos will make an excellent Secretary" in an incredibly condescending tone, as if there are no qualms with her. He used the classic "character assassination" term, which is something Republicans have been using a lot lately because they are having a hard time defending the very substantial criticisms of some of these nominees. He is now talking about how it's bad that these votes are taking a long time. They cannot defend the criticisms of these candidates, they only point to what the past and say "I want you to do the thing you did with Obama's people"

I looked him up, this is a book he wrote.

Edit: And now he's just talking about religion. Get people like this guy out of office. Out of touch and out of his mind.

Edit 2: Bonus audio of him insisting kids are being brainwashed in schools, and that when they get out you have to un-brainwash them.

read a fucking book and learn something

Also:

• https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/if-earth-has-warmed-and-cooled-throughout-history-what-makes-scientists-think-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/
  
• https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
  
• https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
  
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
  
• https://www.skepticalscience.com/Two-attempts-to-blame-global-warming-on-volcanoes.html

I'd recommend this book as well.

Yeah, same general theme struck me today when I saw Bill McKibben had tweeted about on Twitter: House backs stiffer penalties for those who damage pipelines. He summarized:

> Texas aims to make pipeline protest a third-degree felony, same as attempted murder.

It's so maddening to see them getting away with such huge offenses and then successfully going after protesters. I tweeted back:

> Hmmm. And what kind of penalty do they advocate for acts that damage or impede the operation of the entire earth ecosystem, our global critical infrastructure of air, water and life, putting the lives of billions at risk?

By the way, since you're speculating on what happens if the UN report is right, I recommend David Wallace-Wells' book The Uninhabitable Earth. There are actually multiple scenarios in the UN report, but the book sorts through that variation.

The sooner we get away from burning fossil fuels and using vast quantities of them to make plastics, the better. We can and must do better. As individuals, we need to install solar panels when and where we can, choose electric or hybrid-electric cars and bikes, and help humanity master the production and carbon cycles. When we do we'll see the (blessed) shrinkage and decline of the monster fossil fuel energy companies that have grown up in the 20th Century and cannot die soon enough in the 21st.

The very future of humanity depends on it.

Given that the fossil fuels industry is funding a rather substantial propaganda campaign to convince Americans that they shouldn't limit CO2 emissions, this isn't terribly surprising.

Quite an interesting read, his ebook is available on Amazon too (I'm making my way through it now). Dr Nakamura has excellent credentials and is highly qualified to speak on the subject. There are so many flawed assumptions that climate models make, it's nice to have someone speaking up about it to combat the hysteria. From the interactions I've had I can't believe the number of people who rabidly shriek about imminent apocalypse and death, I wonder how well they understand the science themselves? It's become a mainstream doomsday cult.

I saw elsewhere in the thread that you live in Alma, so I chose Topeka as the nearest large comparison city: Cost of Living Comparison Between Topeka, KS and Seattle, WA.

Rent is indeed going to be a major factor for you. I don't know how things work in Alma, but here the rent usually only covers the structure itself (the "four walls" as it were); it doesn't include utilities: power, heating, water, garbage, internet, phone, etc. A lot of other cost-of-living factors are pretty similar. My girlfriend has lived in Seattle for several years on about $30k/yr (pre-tax) but she makes compromises to do so: lives with a roommate in low-rent housing, doesn't have a car (but uses Car2Go occasionally), walks miles to/from bus stops every day, cooks 90% of her meals at home, does most of her non-food shopping at thrift and second-hand stores, etc. It's definitely do-able.

/u/synthesizedjasmine's response was really quite good and I'd like to piggyback on that comment (and elaborate upon it) a bit, including some non-cost-of-living things:

• Sell one of the cars before moving here. You can get membership to a service like Car2Go or ZipCar for occasional car use.
  
• Violent crime rates are extremely low here, but property crime is very high; even if your rental agreement doesn't require it, renter's insurance would be a good idea. (Seattle crime map)
  
• The wealth inequality thing is pretty stark; there is a community of homeless people living in what is known as The Jungle, which on any given day could be driven past by more than one person whose net worth is more than all of those people will ever make in their lifetimes, combined.
  
• The traffic can be absolutely horrible, there's really no two ways about it. While you're sitting in that traffic, you'll be surrounded by entitled self-righteous dipshits driving $100,000 (or more) cars who haven't used a turn signal in years. Drive defensively if you're going to drive at all.
  
• Some notes about the weather. This is really important and can come as a shock to people.
  
• It doesn't rain here nearly as much (quantity) as people think it does: Comparing Topeka with Seattle again, we average less rainfall in Seattle than in Topeka.
  
• If you follow those links to the rainfall data, you'll notice that when it rains here is almost the exact opposite of when it rains in Topeka; high rainfall in the winter and low rainfall in the summer.
  
• It doesn't rain hard here and we seldom get storms (you can literally go years without hearing thunder) but it can drizzle for weeks on end, especially during the winter.
  
• Although the rain may not always fall, the sky can often look like it; cloudy days are more common in Seattle than in Kansas, about 22% more frequent.
  
• Predicting the weather here is hard. Really hard. Two mountain ranges and an unusual weather convergence zone can cause wild variations in weather in locations only a mile apart. Cliff Mass, a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington has a blog where he will often go into much greater detail about the weather forecast than you see on the news; he's also written a book about the weather here.
  
• Snow has become less frequent over the years. If it does snow, everything will shut down, even if it's only a couple inches of snow. Seattle is woefully unprepared for dealing with snow; there are a lot of hills, we don't use salt, and nobody knows how to drive in the snow. If it snows at all and you have the option of staying home, do so, you'll be safer there. Here are some videos if you would like more convincing.
  
• The Seattle Freeze has nothing to do with weather and can be a real thing. Forming new friendships here, especially for people who move from out of state, can be really hard. It doesn't happen to everyone, but it can and does happen to some.
  
  Edit to add:
  
  
• Seattle is a highly educated city. The person who makes your coffee is likely to have at least a bachelor's degree of some sort or be working towards it. The Seattle metro area is the sixth most well-educated in the country.

Thanks, everybody! It's been a great few hows, but that's all for now.

Hope I may have opened a few eyes about the scale and urgency of this crisis, and that you will check out my book (https://www.amazon.com/Uninhabitable-Earth-Life-After-Warming/dp/0525576703) and find me on Twitter (@dwallacewells).

Thanks again, Reddit!

I think David Wallace-Wells’ the Uninhabitable Earth does a great job of giving a frank and sober perspective on where we are and how unlikely it is we will escape collapse. Because he works for New York Magazine, it’s a relatively mainstream book (at least compared to John Michael Greer or Derrick Jenson).

https://www.amazon.com/Uninhabitable-Earth-Life-After-Warming/dp/0525576703/ref=nodl_

An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology by James Holton is probably the most commonly used dynamics book. Another one that I really like is Mid-Latitude Atmospheric Dynamics: A First Course by Jonathan Martin.

As far as thermodynamics goes A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics by Grant Petty is a good one.

Sigh.

Anyone who throws there hands up and says "lolwut, itz too complicated i dunno!" is not a skeptic. Do you honestly think that climate scientists don't study natural phenomena like the ones on this list and try to understand their causes and implications? This post is especially pathetic, but it's literally just a list of natural phenomena; if you think think this stuff is what makes the climate complex, then you literally don't know anything about atmospheric science.

You might want to start with the following textbooks, which any climate scientist will have devoured by the time they have a Masters -

• Global Physical Climatology
  
  
• An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology
  
  
• Atmosphere, Ocean, and Climate Dynamics
  
  
• Atmospheric Science: an Introductory Survey
  
  
• Fundamentals of Large Scale Circulation
  
  
• Dynamics and Ice Sheets of Glaciers
  
  
• Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation
  
  There are, of course, higher level textbooks on my shelf as well. The majority of the stuff on this list is basic stuff that an undergraduate would be exposed to. It doesn't even scratch the surface of what our science is actually about.
  
  EDIT TO ADD -
  For example, geostrophy is this list. Do you know what geostrophic motion is? It's motion where the only forces acting on a parcel are the Coriolis force and the pressure gradient force. How do you get to geostrophic motion? Well, on the first day of your Junior year as a meteorology student, you start taking Atmospheric Dynamics. Your professor throws Navier-Stokes on the board and says "This is what we need to solve to figure out how the atmosphere works." Then he mentions that there is a million dollar prize for working with that equation and says "okay, let's see if we can simplify things." After that, you spend a few lectures deriving atmospheric motion following Holton, Lindzen, or Serreze - talking about the Rossby radius, coordinate transformations, Eulerian vs. Lagrangian and material derivatives, and path integrals through moving reference frames.
  
  Ultimately you re-derive equations of motion from scratch starting with F=ma, and arrive at a 3D set of equations where motion is determined by terms relating to the pressure gradient, accelerations, friction, gravity, and the Coriolis force. Then, you scale analyze the terms of the equations to see what the dominating terms are, given certain assumptions.
  
  Assume you're above the PBL; then, friction is negligible. You'll immediately see that acceleration/velocity-related terms are an order of magnitude smaller than the other terms. Assume hydrostatic balance and there is no acceleration in the vertical, truncating your motion to two dimensions. You're left with a balance of forces in both your basis vectors - pressure gradient and coriolis. Balance these two and you can solve for a balanced flow called geostrophic flow. Geostrophic flow is super-simple and only really works as an approximation for upper-level flows with small curvature (i.e. you need features larger than the Rossby radius of deformation or else the assumptions about 2D velocity are invalid). But it's a great learning tool for meteorology students to get their hands dirty with the math, and derive from first principles why flow is counter-clockwise around Low Pressures in the northern hemisphere.
  
  Relax some assumptions and you can also get gradient flow or cyclostrophic flow.
  
  You can't do any meteorology with these flows, though - you need at least to relax geostrophy and derive quasi-geostrophy with the aid of the circulation and divergence theorems to actually get vertical motion which is diagnosable from thermodynamics and fluid dynamics.
  
  Anything else from the domain of the atmospheric science that the skeptics here want explained? Now's your chance.

> I needed to check, but the mainstream Republican position on climate change is "head in sand", a refusal to look at evidence, or discuss the matter.

It varies, but straight-up denialism is well within the Overton Window. James Inhofe, author of "The Greatest Hoax", is the first example that comes to mind, but he's not alone. (The President, insofar as he has stable opinions, agrees there.)

> I don't understand what you are saying. Sorry.

I really am sorry that I'm having such a hard time articulating this. I'm not sure how I'm going so wrong.

The mainstream left and the mainstream right are visibly different on climate; the mainstream right contains straight-up flat-earth style denialism. The mainstream left and the mainstream right are generally equivalent on "HBD", in that no one on either side will say anything like "black people are stupid and poor because of their genes". Therefore, there's an asymmetry between the left and right on climate that's not replicated on "HBD" issues.

You should really just go read this book and fuck off.

https://www.amazon.ca/Avalanche-Handbook-3rd-Peter-Schaerer/dp/0898868092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483725866&sr=8-1&keywords=avalanche+handbook

>Any other field can show raw data and explain how that data is extrapolated, even with regards to a complex system.

And in all those fields, there is a large number of people studying the issue, using different methods of data collection, and different methods of extrapolating it. And among all of them, there will be a general consensus, and disagreement about certain hypotheses - whether that comes from criticism of methodology, how the theory is applied, how applicable the theory is, etc. Climate science is no different. Look into any aspect of scientific research, and you're going to find disagreement within the field, and plenty of good reasons to back up each point - most of the time.

>If the issue is so complex, how can so many people be so thoroughly certain of it?

Within any scientific field there is a massive range of topics being explored. Since nobody has the time to read all the material and decide for themselves, they tend to trust that the researchers know what they're doing. Published material is subjected to peer review to ensure that it isn't nonsense, and scientists who disagree with an assertion criticise it, and explain why.

Here are some links to textbooks on the subject.

http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9789400757561 Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.


http://www.cambridge.org/features/climatechange/textbooks.htm - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159 - Introduction to Modern Climate Change; this is a textbook for beginners at degree level.

The takeaway message I'm trying to get across is that modern day climate research has an incredibly broad scope, and trying to get a full, top-level handle on all of it is near impossible due to the massive amounts of material out there. Getting a degree in a related subject would be a start.

>Simply asking where the figure that 97% of scientists agree comes from should really get a direct answer, yet it really doesn't.

Here. This is the first study that NASA are citing. And curiously enough, the results for all the sources in the politifact article comes to above 90%, with the exception of a poll of earth scientists, which states the consensus at 82%, although it rises to over 97% once they cut that sample down to actively publishing climate scientists, and the American Meteorological Society poll, which states the consensus was only at 73%, but once it was narrowed down to actively publishing scientists, rose to 93%.

So even if the 97% figure is disputed, it's also got plenty of good information behind it too. The reason it gets used so much is because there is enough credit put by it to consider it "good enough", and that the consensus itself: "Humans are contributing to climate change" is correct.

Which leads us to the final conclusion: if the vast majority of the scientific community believe that climate change is A) happening and B) affected on a major level by anthropogenic activity, then do we wait for the rest to get on board (bearing in mind that there are also biologists who believe in intelligent design), or do we accept that this is probably going to happen, and start drawing up ways of mitigating it?

>review the accuracy of the predictions made over time concerning climate change that were peer-reviewed as well...

There's a book on just that: https://www.amazon.com/Climatology-versus-Pseudoscience-Exposing-Predictions/dp/1440832013

And of course study after repeated study that continue to confirm predictions from global warming such as a recent finding concerning a shift in clouds, etc.

Climate science is based on evidence across multiple fields, confirmed by multiple fields, cross checked by multiple fields - that's not religion that's scientific consensus. Rejecting the evidence with no substantial, or credible evidence to support your rejection is what faith is all about - that's the religion.

He's got a new book that outlines the specific biblical reasons why Global Warming is a hoax from the liberal media.

Here.

SS: This is a video I've seen references to on reddit that discusses the geopolitical impacts of climate change. Refugee crises, food conflicts, etc. could increase significantly. It's over 1hr in length so I didn't watch all of it. Gwynne Dyer also wrote a book expounding on his interpretation of climate change. It tends to be pessimistic but it's an interesting worst-case scenario look at what climate change could do.

Senator James Inhofe has never said "the hole in the ozone layer was a hoax".

He did write a book, however, called "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future":

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Hoax-Warming-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493

We taxpayers just paid James Inhofe a right wing Oklahoma shithead for these books on piffle and our politicians are going to read it.

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. by Senator James Inhofe (Author)

a study on double think no doubt

http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493

>James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe (/ˈɪnhɒf/; born November 17, 1934) is the senior United States senator from Oklahoma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

>In the 2008 election cycle, Inhofe's largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership PACs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.[22][23] In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).[24]

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=I&cid=N00005582&newMem=N&recs=20&cycle=2014

Ya know I hear a lot about circle jerks on reddit, here is one in real life that involves politicians all around us. Do you want an ill informed nutcase barking coal mad religious fundi nutter running the nation or someone with beans between their shoulders?

And let it be known the Jeebus gave white America the tools to go forth and bring home the beans, we can dig this land for its coal and burn it endlessly until the rapture. Praise the lord baby jeebus for all this money

Link to the book he wrote (the reviews are hilarious) -
https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Hoax-Warming-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Your story really resonates with my own growing up in Oklahoma.

I guess a lot of people on here look at their analysis as totally novel and "the thing" that will help save us all, if only everyone else could see it their way. I don't think that is the case, and nothing I say I will "save us," frankly I don't understand who it is that needs saving or why?

Cognitive Bias's are just fun little things that can help you see the world a bit differently, like a pair of glasses that makes things sometimes less blurry. I think they are also useful for your mood, at least for me, It puts me in a better mood when I can filter information a bit better and not get emotional about it.

For Climate Change, I recommend you read at "Hot Earth Dreams" if you happen to be looking for a possible picture of the a climate change ridden world, where not everyone dies, but there is no Utopian happy motoring left either.

https://www.amazon.com/Hot-Earth-Dreams-climate-happens/dp/1517799392

How comfortable are you with math and at which "level" do you want to understand the concepts of weather? I.e., do you want to learn the physics behind it, or just know what fronts, cyclones etc. that they talk about on TV are?

For the former the book Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey is a comprehensive introduction, but I wouldn't recommend it to laymen who are just interested in weather.

DNC executive wrote something nice to BLM? I'm not super impressed. We could go back and forth on various party surrogates all day. For example: Former SC GOP Exec Director Todd Kincannon tweets: "It hasn't been this dark in the superdome since all those poors occupied it after Hurricane Katrina"

The primary difference I think, between the left and the right in America currently is that it's really easy to find elected Republicans Senators saying things like climate change is the worlds greatest hoax. But it's really hard to find elected Democratic senators saying the other crazy stuff (vaccines cause autism etc.).

The Democratic party has crazy people, sure, but they're marginalized and mostly aren't elected congressmen or senators. The Republican party, on the other hand, elects their crazy people.

This is the best book if you understand some basic undergraduate calculus.

http://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Science-Second-Introductory-International/dp/012732951X

If you want something a little more academic, try John Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing: 5th edition. It's an introductory textbook on Climate Change - it doesn't go into fine detail on how data sets are collected and managed, and any textbook like this will always be a little out-of-date. But it is a broad and comprehensive overview of the science of climate change, and the many consequences that flow from it.

You should read these two books.

I don’t think you — and a lot of people — understand how much data we have on what happens to this planet when atmospheric carbon and temperature levels reach the place they’re unquestionably going to. The earth has been through a lot in its billions of years of existence, and it creates a lot of natural experiments that provide us insight. The basic thing to remember is that the entire history of human civilization has existed within one climate pattern that’s prevailed for the last 10,000 years, and we are barreling towards a fundamental phase change. As in, the most likely scenario is that huge swaths of land currently housing tens of millions of people will become physically inhabitable. The most likely scenario is that bony fish will no longer be a resource that can be fished from the ocean. As in, the amount of carbon we’re introducing to the atmosphere rivals that released by the earth’s most cataclysmic events, which themselves presaged massive extinctions that killed 90%+ of the life on this planet.

Yes, there’s a bell curve of uncertainty around specific impacts, but you don’t seem to appreciate that bell curves have two ends—it’s possible that the outcome won’t be nearly as bad as the median models predict, but it’s also equally likely it will be catastrophically worse. As in, the literal end of human civilization as we know it is within the reasonable long-tail outcomes (though is not the most likely scenario). I’ve notice that climate “agnostics” who bring up uncertain don’t actually seem uncertain they seem fairly certain that climate scientists are wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Wars-Fight-Survival-Overheats/dp/1851688145

"The Avalanche Handbook" is a good, thick reference though drier then Trempers "Staying Alive."

Tremper has a new book that I haven't read.

"Snow Sense" is a classic but short.

I just recommended this book on another thread and it is really great and covers lots of emergency shelter style stuff. Written by two NOLS instructors one of whom happens to be a brilliant cartoonist. They have other books on avalanches and telemark skiing too.

Some good blogs are http://wildsnow.com, http://bedrockandparadox.com/, http://straightchuter.com/, http://forrestmccarthy.blogspot.com/.

Nearly same title, book by John Casey.

English version of Fritz Vahrenholt's book.

Speaking of which. This here is another very good book on the long-term impacts of Climate Change. Very well written and frighteningly thorough on the range of issues we'll be facing over the next century.

Well then

https://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Science-Second-Introductory-International/dp/012732951X

That should get it done. If you want way more "headaches because I don't understand" math then this

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Dynamic-Meteorology-International-Geophysics/dp/0123848660

Those 2 are pretty standard for the field

TESTING COPY PASTE OF TEXT:::: PLEASE IGNORE.

Read the linked papers:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks to hit 560 ppm (double 1850-levels) late this century.

The potency of CO2 is expressed as "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity") in climate modeling. ECS expresses temperature increase at equilibrium from doubling CO2.
Due to climate's thermal inertia roughly half of a temperature change due to forcing is realized within 10 years, while 14-40% has still not arrived after a century. The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that ECS is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5" The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2 *.

Lower ECS ~1.5 better fit satellite era observations. ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models. AR5 WG1 stated "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (p.84). There is least uncertainty in temperature data after the start of satellite record ~1979, and for this timeframe ECS is estimated in 1.5-2 range [1], [2]
(In general, ECS-estimates vary based on temperature dataset**, choice of start- and end-dates, carbon-cycle*** modeling and warming attribution to other sources (overview)).
The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming. ECS=1.5 thus implies four times less warming from CO2 increases this century than current IPCC models!

Removing multi-decadal oscillations from data yields ECS 0.5-1.5. Natural oscillations with multi-year periods such as El Niño(11y), AMO(~60y) and PDO(~50-60y) dominate data on the timescale since 1850. Climate models do not accurately [ch1.2] model these oscillations. Removing oscillations mathematically to isolate underlying warming results in much lower climate sensitivity than in AR5: ECS ~1.5,TCR ~1.2 on 150 years of instrumental data, and ECS=0.6 on ~1000 years of proxy-data. These papers remove oscillations without the need to attribute causes to them, but as some of the oscillations removed will be solar-induced, the work is related to the sections below.

Human CO2-emissions coincide with the end of the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and with solar forcing transitioning from abnormally low to abnormally high. LIA had globally colder climate, coinciding with "Maunder" (1645-1715) and "Dalton"(1790-1830) solar minima. LIA average temperatures were 0.5-0.7 degC lower than Medieval Warm Period(MWP). 1850 at the end of LIA was unusually cold, is thus a poor baseline. Climate inertia should apply for solar as well as CO2-driven warming, implying a long post-LIA transient warming. Second half of the 20th century is the period of highest solar activity in the last 8000 years. A link between solar forcing changes and LIA/MWP has been found, so solar variation partially explaining modern warming up to the early 00ies is also plausible.

There is disagreement on if solar variability is "high variability" or "low variability"
Modeling solar activity is challenging because no direct measurements of solar variability exist prior to satellite record from ~1980, and because the record is "grafted" together from a data from many short-lived satellites, (review of challenges given in ch1).
CMIP5 uses a "low-variability" estimate of solar variation "PMOD" based on work by Kopp&Lean,
that has been strongly critized(ch9) for being an unverified theoretical model which implements alterations not recognized by the original experimental teams to drifts that are postulated but not verified. The alternative to "PMOD" are "high-variability" TSI-estimates such as that of Hoyt&Schatten that agree with "ACRIM" satellite data. Evidence that high-variability TSI-estimates are more accurate are:

• "low-variability" TSI-changes appear amplified 5-7 times in oceans,
  
• "high-variability" TSI is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient, and
  
• "low-variability" TSI-changes are too small to explain MWP/LIA temperature changes (AppendixB).
  
  Solar forcing variability is key to climate modeling, because just a 0.3% (5 W/m2) increase is enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (283 degC), a gain of ~0.2 degC per W/m2.
  "High-variability" TSI vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries, and could thus explain 50-80% of observed modern warming.
  
  CMIP5 models are running hot as solar activity falls, indicating that variability in their solar forcing estimate is too low. Because solar forcing and CO2-concentrations co-incident rise 1850-2000, underestimating climate solar sensitivity would wrongfully raise CO2-sensitivity (ECS),explaining why:
  
  
• as solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ), CMIP5 models have run warm. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a)(A comparison of temperature and "hot" CMIP5 model predictions can be found here)),
  
• larger-than-life ECS were needed to fit data pre-2000: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report), and why
  
• CMIP5 underestimates solar-induced LIA/MWP in hindcasts.
  
  Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS<1.5. "Hoyt&Schatten" TSI-estimate results in ECS of 0.44. Paleo-analysis of climate, CO2 and sun variability similarly found ECS=0.5.
  
  Persistent flaws in climate research are plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests.
  
  * "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) is temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually (before transients settle). TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 30-40% (or 0.5-0.8 degC). TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5.
  
  ** Estimates of ECS from data prior to 1979 require use of GIS/HADCRUT instrument records, adjusted by proprietary algorithms using climate models and homogenized which can create spurious warming. Audits of these datasets have uncovered data-quality issues, but datasets are generally hard to independently verify. The sea/surface global temperature record is only globally complete for the satellite era. A reason for skepticism is that recent warming is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges. Prior to~1880 proxies are used, but suffer from «the divergence problem» of not describing recent warming.
  
  ***Carbon cycle simulations indicate TCR below 1

He actually has a book about climate change called, "The Greatest Hoax" https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Hoax-Warming-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493

Indeed. I seem to remember that from https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hot-Earth-Dreams-climate-happens/dp/1517799392/ref=sr_1_1

Avoiding the next ice age is a good thing, right? ;)

Cliff Mass's blog and book are worth reading too.

> What else might happen that would be huge enough to bring us all together?

Climate change. A common problem. But we would have to view it as a shared task (and not the fault of this or that).

> And if for example global warming causes widespread drought, famine, and mass migration, leading to border skirmishes, terrorism and extremist leaders taking power, what would stop this situation from getting so out of hand that (for example) Pakistan doesn't nuke India for cutting off its access to a major river or the like?

That's actually a scenario in a book called Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer.

> Talk me out of the idea that if things continue the way they are going, someone won't go so far as to use nukes. You mentioned hundreds of millions of people dying. Why wouldn't someone feel so provoked at some point that bombs get launched? Things are already getting bad faster than most projections had predicted they would.

Well, I'm not sure I can make the claim that they won't. We can hope that the leaders still use MAD as a deterrent. But to be honest, while I think I have an idea of how some of the future will play out, I do not have a pulse on this aspect of it.

But there are groups out there who are pushing for a truly advanced economic system that averts these problems, or can at least operate under such strain.

The problem that we face is our economic system, and our political system, are dogshit terrible at being efficient.

We can provide for everybody, even under climate strain, but it requires working together.

Dropping the notion of countries would be a start. Thinking of the entire planet as one society would go quite a ways to prevent tribal mentality.

The Zeitgeist Movement is currently in the education stage of their plan. That is, to inform as many people as possible, as wide a group as they can reach, that the fact that people are starving and hungry today is because of our shitty economic system.

And the problem is, the vast majority of people have only ever known this system, and are completely convinced that this is the best we can do.

And when they think this is the best we can do, they are convincing themselves it's necessary to wipe out parts to leave enough for the rest of us.

We will lose some parts of the world, we will have to evacuate. But we can feed 100 times more people with the same amount of water using vertical farming, than regular open air farming.

Our system is primed to waste as much as possible and be as inefficient and ineffective as possible because you get rewarded for the more solutions you can sell.

If we could change our farming methods to be 100 times more efficient, for the same cost in water...

What about computing technology ? What about building housing for all humans ? What about building transportation ? What about medical facilities all over the world ? And for free ?

What else are we short on because it's expensive, that we could have plenty of if we changed the way we think ?

So...

Here's a short series called Culture In Decline, EP 6

Basically it depicts two futures. One if we stay on what we have. And one if we alter course now.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people actively working to alter course by bringing to everyone's attention that we can do so much better than this.

So to answer your question...

• I can't tell you for sure how to avoid it, except to say, make it known that there's a fork in the road coming up. There is another option than desolate waste from our inefficient and wasteful system.

The book "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dwyer is a book I can't recommend enough for anyone wanting to get up to speed on what climate change really means for us and the wealth of knowledge that has accumulated over the years. He spent a year interviewing top scientists, policy makers, military and intelligence community members from around the world and asked them what they are aware of and what they are planning for. It is a very comprehensive book and Dwyer is a world renown investigative geopolitical reporter. The book is a bit dated (April 2011) but its still very relevant in synthesis and analysis and its interesting to read about thresholds he predicts we wont cross until 2020 or later that we have already crossed. He also concludes that the IPCC reports, which policy makers use as a guide, is unreliable for displaying and highlighting the realities of the situation for various reasons.

Doc Snow wrote a really great summary and review of the book with pictures that is quite comprehensive. I cannot recommend looking at this enough to all people and especially my fellow redditors who have the resources to not be in the dark. Knowledge is power.

Edit: Fixed link. Grammar and spelling.

I'm currently enrolled in a masters program in meteorology in Norway. I'm not sure what curriculum is in the courses you're mentioning, but the meteorology relevant courses in my bachelor basically consist of the geophysical fluid dynamics found in this compendium, and atmospheric physics found in this book. The compendium is written by my professor, so there is definitely better ones out there, but it gives you an overlook of what is relevant. The book however is used in four different courses at my university, and is basically our bachelor bible of meteorology. Good luck!

The Ends of the World By Peter Brannen is amazing, can't recommend it highly enough.

I'm glad to see your positive review of Brusatte's "Rise and fall of the Dinosaurs", it's on my shelf of books to read.

I'll refer you to the book "Climate Wars" by Gwynn Dyer. While he reviews the science of climate change at the beginning, most of the book is based on scenarios developed by the US military and interviews of high-ranking officers. Gwynn Dyer is a military historian, not an environmental writer.

I don't own the book, but as I recall he sourced most of the material in it.

> the NYT publishes so much BS

> the church of climate change

Yikes, your bias is showing. You might want to consider trying to learn atmospheric science from an actual textbook instead of letting right-wing blogs tell you what to think. I'd recommend this one or this one if your math is up to par, after which you could probably then move up to a graduate-level text like this one.

I'm not making an "evidence-based argument", retard. I'm telling you that I'm speculating.

Why do you care so deeply about this non-issue?

Read a book:

Climate Change: The Facts

>Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.

Wow, I'm surprised you followed up on this! yeah.. 100% chance of rain, high of 55. Just off by 20 degrees! hehe

​

Yeah as a pretty avid/nutso outdoors weekend warrior year around for 7-8 years, the amount of time I spent (wasted, perhaps?) looking at the NOAA forecast, reading meteorological discussions, and trying to divine what weather would come by the weekend... my ultimate take away is that outside of that specific high pressure summer ridge that develops over the Pacific that gives us our glorious summers, the forecast is especially tough to rely on beyond a few days off, sometimes even less then 24hr out is not reliable. There's a few exceptions to this, the biggest I can think of is when we get the rare occurrence of snow in the winter there's usually a high pressure system in play, that can sometimes give a longer range of predictable weather (usually sunny, clear, and windy af from the east!). But that can last for a few days to a few weeks even sometimes.

​

It's that air-mass colliding with the typical weather coming off the pacific that gives us the snow. The difficulty in predicting is that the ocean always wins that battle, eventually, but sometimes the situation is down to the last minute knowing if the colder inland air will hang on for X amount of time as the moist pacific air hits it.

​

If you want to geek out on the weather I recommend this book by a meteorological professor up at UW in seattle. It's slightly washington centric but touches on the gorge and Oregon enough to make it plenty relevant.

https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Pacific-Northwest-Cliff-Mass/dp/0295988479

​

let's just enjoy the rain tomorrow.. the weekend looks pretty decent!

​

​

It can help to understand the climate change sceptic side too. Try Climate Change:the facts

He wrote a 300 page book to deny climate change. He really believes it.

> Could you please provide sources for these statements?

Can you tell me specifically what you would like sourced? I'll try to provide some avenues for further reading in this post a bit.

> For anyone else reading, radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming and outgoing energy through the Earth's atmosphere. I have never seen a climate change model from a credible organization that did not have this as at least a central component.

Current climate models relegate the influence of the sun on the climate at a 0.1% TSI variability over the solar cycle as it relates to upper atmospheric heating. This of course is valid. Where the problem arises is when it comes to particle forcing mechanisms. These are not considered in any mainstream climate model and, as such with all unaccounted natural variables, their effects don't go away but get attributed to humanity instead.

> It's worth noting that CMIP is comprised of climate scientists... CMIP's official stance is that man-made climate change is real... So I'm not sure who we are criticizing here...

Again, CMIP6 released two data sets. One with particle forcing and one without particle forcing. I have yet to see a single model that used the data set that includes particle forcing that shows humans are the driving factor. Climate science is not the monolith they would have you believe. The idea that all climate scientists are idiots and liars is of course absurd. There is absolutely dissent that is working towards what I think is the right direction, but with funding and peer review in this field being the way that it currently is, one must be careful with the way they say things in order to keep their jobs.

Do a google scholarly article search on solar forcing of various aspects of the climate that you can think of, practically none of them are accounted for in models. These are the same models that we see all these predictions being based off. There are huge amounts of papers coming out that aren't getting the publicity that anthropogenic climate change gets. A kid even recently won the national science championship showing the correlation between coronal hole activity and cyclones (Faris Wald is his name if you wanted to look it up, it is super interesting stuff). Mainstream science didn't make this connection, an 8th grader did.

Just recently Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (MIT, NASA JPL&Goddard, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science, Duke, Hawaii, Georgia Institute of Tech, International Pacific Research Center) wrote a book called "Confessions of a climate scientist - the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis." I highly recommend the read, the gist of it is summed up by him saying "Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world." I name him primarily as a recent high profile example of a dissenter, of which there are many who are not as vocal.

I appreciate the non insulting tone by the way.

Check out the Gwynne Dyer book Climate Wars, his documentary for Canadian radio or the new film The Age of Consequences.

If we address issues people care about, they might listen.

There's a lot of exciting stuff going on down here on Earth too. So exciting stuff happening on Mars gets a little drown out.

As for politics, politicians have been scoring political points attacking Evolution and claiming Climate science is a hoax. Academic institutions, especially the prestigious ones, have also been attacked as "elitist."

> We are told to take the testimony by faith for both. They are the experts in the field after all.

No you're not. You can demand evidence. You can look for it yourself. You can ask a scientist for evidence.

> You're right. Oh my gosh. The pope shouldn't be taken at his word. You should DEMAND evidence before accepting a word he says. Oh, wait. How is that different here?

No one is demanding that you accept anything on faith. If you really want, you can take the time to find and understand the evidence.

> Nope, consensus mean nothing and is literally a fallacy if you rely on it. Appeal to authority. That is why I mentioned the pope.

You still don't understand the difference between an expert testimony on consensus and an appeal to authority fallacy. The difference is the expert has to and can show what he knows by demonstrating it and pointing to peer reviewed science that demonstrates what is known. That is not a fallacy.

> I have, have you?

I have and I can explain it. You haven't demonstrated that you even understand the basics.

> Malthusians have been doing the same thing. Granted, I think they are honest for the most part just like chicken little. Just falling trap to confirmation bias and selection bias.

The properties and effects of Co2 as a greenhouse gas were discovered and predicted 150 years ago. . Simple physics and OLR budget models predicted and confirmed what we observe today. Scientists have looked at and accounted for all the data. There is no cherry picking going on except by deniers.

> First, complexity like climate requires cherry picking. The data literally has to be scrubbed, correct and all that. Second, cherry picking like sounding the alarm on hot days but really quiet or having a polar vortex when it is cold. Hot causes cold too after all.

No peer reviewed science literature cherry picks hot or cold days. All data is adjusted, is necessary, and scientifically justified to correct for inconsistencies introduced by instrument changes, moves, time of measurement changes, urbanization around instruments, etc. There is no conspiracy here. Further, the methodology and results for the adjustments are published in peer reviewed literature. If something is wrong, it will get caught and corrected. If someone thinks the methodology and results are wrong, they can publish an article to explain why. They only cherry picking here is deniers pointing to cold days and throwing snowballs in congress.

> Like appeal to authority?

I already explained this to you but you have failed to understand the context it is valid to cite experts and when it is not valid by citing people who boost their authority by citing credentials, titles, positions held, etc.

> Like those evil oil companies hiding the truth?

This has been demonstrated and isn't a conspiracy. Further it has no features of a conspiracy.

> Sure. But by how much. I warmed a pool by peeing in it. Did the temperature change enough to be significant or measurable?

You can read about it here and here
> So you can't think of another explanation? If I told you the inferred radiation on something decreased, you can only think that the object must be insulated?

This is confirmed by measuring the long wave radiation absorbing properties of all gases contained in our atmosphere with a spectrometer. If something else is insulating the atmosphere, please indicate what it is using reason and evidence and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

> I will take your word on that and the people financially depended on it too.
> Wait, what am I saying. I need to see this simple measure demonstrated over time. I need proof.
>No, you have the proof of evidence. You are making the claim. Mine is a claim of agnosticism. I don't claim to know EITHER way, nor do I think anyone else does either. But like I said, heat output decreasing doesn't mean heating up. If there is less exhaust from my car, it doesn't mean the exhaust is blocked, maybe the car isn't on.

You can look it up here and follow the references if necessary. If the sun stays reletivilty constant and the decrease in outgoing radiation has occurred and we know GHGs absorb long wave radiation, and GHGs have increased, that is the proof. That's the published research. If you believe that is wrong or there is another explanation, please demonstrate it with reason and evidence.

> There is. I made it. Just because a group of experts says something is true, they have seen the evidence, doesn't make it true.

The evidence says it's true and it is there for you to look at it but you don't.

> Like polar vortexes? God, AGW caused that extreme cold.

It is apparent you don't understand what is being claimed and haven't read the research on it.

> No, you want me to change my mind without said evidence. Live by faith I will not do.

No one has or is asking you to believe with out evidence. The evidence has been pointed out to you in various levels of expertise with reference where the data and research is published. You're just being intentionally obtuse.

> I have and I know that I don't know and can't know for the time being.

Can't know because you refuse to accept evidence or look up the data and referred journal citations in the links already provided you.

> Only because I haven't bought your explanation. Have you, or is this only a one way street? I am the infidel that must repent? That doesn't sound like good faith at all. All you have said is these experts have said it is true and the numbers they provided prove it. That isn't very good evidence.

I used to be a denier because I didn't understand the science and was mislead by denier arguments. I actually looked at the peer reviewed research and made an effort to understand it and changed my mind. It is apparent after examining the denier arguments that they misinform, cherry pick data, engage in logical fallacies, and engage in conspiracies. I haven't seen you demonstrate a good faith effort to make even a basic understanding of the science and even dismiss everything I show you and demand proof when it is there for you to lookup and see how the science is done to demonstrate what is known about climate.

> No, only scientific consensus as science. It isn't, so I am actually defending it. You are the only denigrating it with appeal to authority as a tenant. rational thought and science is about personal discovery. Something I get told either can't be done, or I can't do it because I didn't come to the same airtight conclusions. THAT seems anti-science to me.

You don't understand what consensus means in a scientific context. You don't understand an appeal to authority. A consensus is about the reason and evidence as published in the peer reviewed literature. It's all there for you to consume. You don't appear to be about rational thought and personal discovery. I've only seen an anti-intellectual attitude and an unwillingness to engage in the scientific literature and repeated dismissals. You demand proof, but then you won't look at it or make any attempt to understand even the basics.

This does not go much into detail about specific rocks but I think it is one of the best books about paleoclimate out there :

https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Climate-William-F-Ruddiman/dp/0716737418

That and it's becoming profitable to feed off climate hysteria/extinction panic. Like how plenty of movies and media criticize capitalism and point out the obvious issues, all while holding ties and profits for said problematic entities.

People are waking up and even that awakening is being cannibalized for profit. Isn't capitalism clever and cruel.

Edit: Case in point

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending


https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0525576703?slotNum=0&linkCode=g12&imprToken=c8yzoTjf1QwEMtn0SJCy9w&creativeASIN=0525576703&tag=tnycanada-20

He wrote a book called the "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493

Here's a quote from him. He bases his climate belief on the fucking book of Genesis.

>Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

Do some goddamn research before you claim that he "isn't a climate change denier"

It sounds like you're working on an interesting project, so the questions you spam us with would probably be interesting as well.

The standard textbook for undergraduates (at several universities that I know of) is Earth's Climate: Past and Future. It's great, lots of detail but also very approachable.

> I remember someone stated that Earth has always had periods of warming and cooling.

It was not by accident that you just happened to hear this.

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1347189033&sr=8-14&keywords=climate+change

Back to your question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/12/previous-temperature-climate-change

More here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/


Yes I agree we should grow up and take responsibility for our actions.

Ah! Those were questions addressed to the original reader of my response to get them thinking. The readers consist of conspiracy theorists and family members/family friends whom the conspiracy theorists CC when they share these articles.

Confirmation bias surely plays a role, as does, in many cases, misinformation, as documented in: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/ and Hoggan and Littlemore's [Climate Cover-Up] (http://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854).

John Cook's handbook is great, as is Oreskes and Conway's book (I've actually sent a copy along to one of the conspiracy theorists, not that I'm guessing it'll get read all the way through). I hadn't seen the Naomi Klein article, but I'm definitely going to check it out now. Thanks for passing that along!

Svar við punktum 1 og 2 geturðu fundið í þessum ágætu fyrirlestrum. https://www.audible.com/pd/Science-Technology/Earths-Changing-Climate-Audiobook/B00D8J4GAU
Hvað punkt þrjú varðar er það vissulega heppilegt að plöntumassi aukist vegna auknunar CO2, sérstaklegt í ljósi þess að skógar-og landeyðing ásamt ósjálfbærri jarðvegsnýtingu og annara þátta innan LULUCF, er einn stærsti þáttur aukningar CO2 í andrúmslofti. Plöntur vaxa meira þegar þeim er gefin meiri koltvísýringur, í rauninni alveg óháð því hvort þær séu C3, C4 eða CAM. Þessvegna er gúrkum, tómötum o.s.frv. gefin auka CO2 í gróðurhúsum. Hinsvegar þýðir það ekki að við séum að njóta þess á Íslandi, þvertámóti virðist gróðurþekja vera að minnka [amk á árunum 2002-2013], en sömu aðstæður eru enn við.

Áhrif aukins CO2 í andrúmslofti eru ekki grá, kannski væru þau það ef þetta væri allt að gerast mun hægar og á mun lengra tímabili, en það er ekki raunin. Það að það séu kostir þýðir ekki að þeir vegi nálægt ókostunum. Það er farið yfir þetta í miklum smáatriðum í Loftlagsskýrslunni í upphafsinnleggi (sem fjallar um þær breytingar sem við megum eiga von á) en líka í fyrirlestrunum hér að ofan. Þó módel séu mjög oft vitlaus, enda erfitt að spá í framtíðina og vísindin bakvið þau geta verið óheyrilega flókin, þá benda langflest módel í sömu átt, sjá skýrslu úr upphafsinnleggi. Bara súrnun sjávar ætti að vera nóg til að ganga til drastískra aðgerða.

Breyting. Þessi bók fer yfir hvernig loftlagsmódel virka auk þess að fara yfir helstu atriði loftlagsvísinda. Get ekki sagt að ég hafi lesið hana í þaula, enda var hún bara svona aukalesefni í einum áfanga sem ég var í. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521602432/metafilter-20/ref=nosim/

>en það er heldur mikil hystería í gangi hjá almenningi vegna þess að athyglissjúkir vísindamenn eru að elska athyglina af einhverjum dómdagsspám.

Við erum ekki að tala um nokkra „athyglissjúka“ vísindamenn heldur vísindasamfélagið. Og við erum nú þegar byrjuð að sjá afleiðingar loftlagsbreytinga, sjá skýrslu í upphafsinnleggi.
Breyting. Þessi bók fer líka í málin mjög vel https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Sir-John-Houghton/dp/1107463793

Cliff Mass is a well known Pacific Northwest weatherman and climate professor who wrote this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Pacific-Northwest-Cliff-Mass/dp/0295988479

And he writes a popular blog too:

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future: Written by Senator James Inhofe

Explain to me again that "conservatives don't hate climate science."

Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics https://www.amazon.com/dp/1440832013/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_FV6lDbCY5E68A

Wow.

Well, in the US, our chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is a published global warming conspiracy theorist, so... perhaps we inherited a taste for perverse appointments from the mother country.

Well, IPCC' is for the "best case" set of scenarii. They don't account for the Clathrate gun hypothesis and mostly discard Thermohaline shutdown.

If both were to happen at full blast, then the worst possible outcome sits around +70m sea level rise and +12°C average within a few centuries. In a lifetime, maybe the first 20 meters could happen, and +4 or +5°C is wayy more likely than +1,5°C. Some even start talking about +8°C in a century and nearly twice that (read +14°C) in two.

You may want to read The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming if you're really into depressing projections.

> The global temperature is increasing wildly

Define wildly. Since 1975 it's increased by an average of about .15 to .2 ^o C per decade and it's increased about 0.8^o C overall since 1880, with about 2/3 of that coming since 1975. It's probably increasing by a bit more than that now because global emissions keep increasing.

> in a few years many heavily populated areas will exceed "wet bulb" temperature, meaning they will become so hot that it would be impossible for human life to exist there

That doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's definition of wet-bulb temperature, although I'll admit to being very unfamiliar with the term; do you know in what context McPherson used it?

It would help to know exactly what McPherson's temperature projections are. To me, the notion that the usual projections could render places currently supporting hundreds of millions of people uninhabitable within the next few years, or even decades, is tough to believe without hard numbers to back it up.

If you're curious for other sources, my impressions are based roughly on Six Degrees, by Mark Lynas and Introduction to Modern Climate Change, by Andrew Dessler. I think climate change is definitely capable of causing our extinction eventually, but it would require a lot of inaction on our part, and it would still take several centuries at least.

This is his book on Amazon, and some of the reviews are ridiculous. I find it hilarious that bible thumpers call anyone who disagrees, or someone who believes in climate change ignorant and arrogant, which is quite the contrary. When it comes to climate change, they claim to have "facts" that disprove it, but blindly hold onto their childish beliefs when real facts are thrown at them. There is solid evidence proving man-made climate change, and to ignore facts, and stomp your feet saying there is evidence that disproves climate change is only delaying the inevitable reality of global instability. Their level of hypocrisy is extremely infuriating.

I fear for the optimists like yourself who believe that the problem will solve itself so easily through 'markets and investors'. Just picked up these two books and I don't agree with you at all that the world is headed the way you think.

I guess I would recommend a few things

• vote for whichever candidate is electable and plans big action on climate change
  
• travel less, and if you can, stop flying. Find other places to go on vacation etc and/or other ways to get there.
  
• offset your emissions, whatever they are. It doesn't solve any underlying problems but it helps a bit
  
• when travelling locally, try to use a bike or public transport or walk
  
• if you have to drive, consider getting an EV (failing that a plugin hybrid) not forgetting that many are available pretty cheap second hand
  
• consider donating to charities and action groups like 350.org, wwf.org, xrebellion.org or cclusa.org
  
• consider switching to a power utility that does not use fossil fuels. Consider fitting solar PV to your house for electricity.
  
• consider direct action with groups like 350.org or xrebellion.org or cclusa.org
  
• show up to any climate related demos or events in your area
  
• go vegetarian and as vegan as you can (mindful of the kids nutrition). Maybe buy supplements in bulk to be certain your nutrition is good.
  
• talk to your friends and family about the things they can do and why they have to. Be an example to others around you and demonstrate that action on climate change means change, not pain and suffering
  
• inform yourself as much as possible about the science, politics and psychology around climate change - including books like Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change and The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming.
  
• talk to your kids but be careful not to scare them. Climate change is having a profound affect on the mental health of young people so you need to communicate with your kids carefully. They need to be informed and motivated, not frightened and despairing.
  
  Hope that helps for starters. As a parent, and with all the other parents out there who increasingly feel as you do, IMO (after feeding them, clothing them and teaching them to be good people) stopping climate catastrophe is our biggest duty to our kids and it will take decades of work. But what other choice is there. It falls to us. Now.

Same way James Inhofe becomes head of the senate environmental committee in the US despite literally writing the book on climate change denial..
Corruption and stupid voters.

Ah, sorry I misread. So, I'd say that's a drastic underestimate of the cost of doing nothing. See for example the paper linked by ILikeNeurons:

> combining realistic assumptions...increases the present social cost of carbon in the model nearly eightfold from US$15 per tCO2 to US$116 per tCO2. Furthermore, passing some tipping points increases the likelihood of other tipping points occurring to such an extent that it abruptly increases the social cost of carbon.

For a great overview of what it looks like, see the book Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, who read 3000 peer-reviewed papers on the effects of climate change and summarized them, one chapter per degree, with extensive references. Two degrees is grim, three is disastrous, and at four the survival of modern civilization starts to look shaky. Six doesn't look survivable at all.

Trouble is, somewhere around two degrees people think feedback effects will seriously kick in, and the planet will go several degrees further with no more help from us. The reason people think that is that geologists can see that it's happened before; small temperature increases caused by orbital variations have kicked off much larger warming cycles.

Disclaimer

Some of the following is based on older data and describes the effects of some fairly extreme climate change models. These worst case events may certainly still occur, but know that, by 2100, around a 4 degree C temperature increase is the most likely result of climate change (if we continue to emit CO2 at our current rate). These two posts look at the current situation and the most likely future scenarios. Also, the article I link to that says it'll take nearly 400 years to overhaul our planet's energy system is incorrect (I'm currently looking for better data).

​

The Situation

YOU SHOULD BE VERY AFRAID. This link deserves to be read in it's entirety because it contains factual information that is legitimately terrifying. However, I have pulled out many of the goodies below (i.e., all sections before What's Happening Now in the U.S. are essentially a summary/partial copy of the Daily Intelligencer article The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition by David Wallace-Wells, which is what that link points to). This will affect you, if you haven't already been affected. Fear is the correct response to a global catastrophic risk (which climate change most certainly is), but if you intend to survive until the tail end of this century, or if you want family members or friends to live past 2100, you must pair that fear with hope, drive, and action. This massively tangled cluster-fuck of a problem will require you personally to act. Vote for politicians that promise to go above and beyond the guidelines set forth by the Paris Agreement, because the Paris Agreement isn't enough. Don't have kids (adopt if you want kids), drive less, don't fly in airplanes, eat less meat, and don't buy anything you don't need. Reduce, reuse, and recycle; but focus on reducing waste. Those are all great things to do, and you should do them all, but significant change in carbon emissions won't occur until strong enough government policies or big enough technology breakthroughs are made.

Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.

The most credible prediction of the effects of climate change comes from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which issues regular reports synthesizing the latest science. The IPCC’s median business-as-usual projection for warming by 2100 is about four degrees, which would expose half the world’s population to unprecedented heat stress, according to Steven C. Sherwood and Matthew Huber’s landmark study on the subject.

“It looks to me that at that those numbers — four to six degrees — you’d start to see the tropics evacuating, because people wouldn’t be able to live there. It might be less than four degrees. But around four degrees or five degrees, would be the point where people would be finding it unbearable.” It wouldn’t just be heat stress driving people away, he said. “A combination of heat stress and other things. I think you’d start to see crop failures, damage to the biosphere. Keep in mind, in the tropics, two or three degrees takes the environment outside the range of natural variability.”

As Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University told David Wallace-Wells,

"...under rapid emissions, by the end of the century, 40 percent of the ability of people to work outside would be lost.”

How likely is this median, “business-as-usual” outcome? It’s difficult to say, but Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton, estimates our chances of staying below the Paris accord’s goal of two-degrees warming at 10 percent. In my interview with Wallace Smith Broecker, of Columbia, he said, “...the mean was about 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming, but it showed there was something like 15 percent probability that it’d be more than four degrees, just on these model runs.” And in their book Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet, Gernot Wagner and Martin Weitzman estimate a 15 percent chance that we overshoot six degrees.

In the winter of 2016, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole, melting the permafrost that encased Norway’s Svalbard seed vault — a global food bank nicknamed “Doomsday,” designed to ensure that our agriculture survives any catastrophe, and which appeared to have been flooded (just a little bit) by climate change less than ten years after being built. Arctic permafrost contains 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as is currently suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere. When it thaws and is released, that carbon may evaporate as methane, which is 34 times as powerful a greenhouse-gas warming blanket as carbon dioxide when judged on the timescale of a century; when judged on the timescale of two decades, it is 86 times as powerful.

Because we are dealing with a planet-wide system, the reaction time is very slow. We are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past. The IPCC projects four degrees of warming by the beginning of the next century, but that's just the median projection. The upper end of the probability curve runs as high as eight degrees. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (the most recent finalized report) doesn't fully account for permafrost melt. By many counts, the IPCC report also doesn't fully account for the albedo effect (less ice means less reflected and more absorbed sunlight, hence more warming); more cloud cover (which traps heat); or the dieback of forests and other flora (which extract carbon from the atmosphere). The last time the planet was even four degrees warmer, Peter Brannen points out in The Ends of the World, his new history of the planet’s major extinction events, the oceans were hundreds of feet higher.

I'm afraid you will have to take that up with John Houghton who describes the process in his book Global Warming.

https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Sir-John-Houghton/dp/1107463793

​

You say:

> Because temperatures cool as you go higher in the troposphere

Basic thermodynamics, the net flow of enthalpy is from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. The driver for all heat transfer is the delta T. The troposphere has to be cooler than the surface or all net heat transfer would be in the other direction. But I did not say the troposphere is warmer than the surface. The troposphere warms due to the greenhouse effect. This reduces the delta T which slows down the heat transfer from the surface causing the surface to warm. The troposphere becomes less cool before the surface warms. I'm surprised anyone participating in this kind of discussion does not get this. I truly recommend the Houghton book.

​

You say:

> ... warming predicted in the troposphere is a consequence of predicted warming of the surface (by almost any cause e.g. GHGs, solar),

Of course we are only speaking of the enhanced greenhouse effect here.

​

Think about it, if what you are saying is true and CO2 gases heat just the surface air, this means the absorption spectrum is saturated at the surface and any CO2 subsequently added to the atmosphere will have no incremental effect.

​

An IR photon emitted from the surface proceeds up the column of air. The net probability of it interacting with a greenhouse molecule is a function of the emission flux and the number of molecules along the emission pathway (not dissimilar from nuclear physics): the longer the pathway, the greater the probability of an interaction. The absorption of IR photons can occur throughout the column of air which is about 18 km high.

​

Now ask yourself what happens to a CO2 molecule that is heated (becomes energized) by an IR photon. Some of the energy is re-radiated away as a IR photon but some of the energy remains in the molecule as latent heat (2nd Law). This heats the molecule which conducts some of the heat to the cooler molecules surrounding it. This warmer pocket of air will convect upwards.

​

So, not only should the troposphere warm due to the radiative heat transfer from greenhouse effect it should also be warmed from below by other gases bringing heat upwards through convective heat transfer resulting from radiative heat transfer. The cumulative effect of this is a warmer less cool troposphere which slows down all other heat transfer from the surface causing the surface to warm.

​

​

Earths Climate: Past, Present and Future.

https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Climate-William-F-Ruddiman/dp/0716737418

free kindle edition

Dr Nakamura Mototaka - is the author. This link is included to demonstrate his qualifications.

Here is something that summarizes some of his scalding criticisms of climate models.

>The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.

>Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

> It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.

He also wrote this streaming pile of shit

you have never actually looked at any of these records then

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N8/C1.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N8/C3.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N14/C1.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N22/C1.php

read this book when it comes out , its written by the man who literally started the green movement in germany and basically is a baron of wind turbine production in the country.

http://www.amazon.com/Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Climate-Catastrophe/dp/1909022241/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376788091&sr=1-1&keywords=Vahrenholt+The+Neglected+Sun


here is him speaking at a global warming conference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HL9p_16EzE

The issue is what's you mean as accurate non contaminated curated data, then how many degrees have it of reliable precision, and then given that precision how reliable is a mathematical model to deliver forecast on global scale assuming that by itself greenhouse gases can't hear the planet they need some questionable also domino effect on strong highly random, true mathematical models draw possible predictions based on the possible paths and actually the true chance for co2 to Cascade domino influence on water vapor in a 50yr period is like to win 3 times the lottery this period for a strong chance, and mostly likely to dilute to the space the extra trace heat.

I don't come here to show you what you previously didn't asked for, but generously I ask you to read Mototaka Nakamura work (also search about him)

https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/

Free Kindle ebook

https://www.amazon.in/kikoukagakushanokokuhaku-chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu-Japanese-Nakamura-Mototaka-ebook/dp/B07FKHF7T2

Read the linked papers:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks to hit 560 ppm (double 1850-levels) late this century.

The potency of CO2 is expressed as "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity") in climate modeling. ECS expresses temperature increase at equilibrium from doubling CO2.
Due to climate's thermal inertia roughly half of a temperature change due to forcing is realized within 10 years, while 14-40% has still not arrived after a century. The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that ECS is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5" The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2 *.

Lower ECS ~1.5 better fit satellite era observations. ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models. AR5 WG1 stated "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (p.84). There is least uncertainty in temperature data after the start of satellite record ~1979, and for this timeframe ECS is estimated in 1.5-2 range [1], [2]
(In general, ECS-estimates vary based on temperature dataset**, choice of start- and end-dates, carbon-cycle*** modeling and warming attribution to other sources (overview)).
The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming. ECS=1.5 thus implies four times less warming from CO2 increases this century than current IPCC models!

Removing multi-decadal oscillations from data yields ECS 0.5-1.5. Natural oscillations with multi-year periods such as El Niño(11y), AMO(~60y) and PDO(~50-60y) dominate data on the timescale since 1850. Climate models do not accurately [ch1.2] model these oscillations. Removing oscillations mathematically to isolate underlying warming results in much lower climate sensitivity than in AR5: ECS ~1.5,TCR ~1.2 on 150 years of instrumental data, and ECS=0.6 on ~1000 years of proxy-data. These papers remove oscillations without the need to attribute causes to them, but as some of the oscillations removed will be solar-induced, the work is related to the sections below.

Human CO2-emissions coincide with the end of the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and with solar forcing transitioning from abnormally low to abnormally high. LIA had globally colder climate, coinciding with "Maunder" (1645-1715) and "Dalton"(1790-1830) solar minima. LIA average temperatures were 0.5-0.7 degC lower than Medieval Warm Period(MWP). 1850 at the end of LIA was unusually cold, is thus a poor baseline. Climate inertia should apply for solar as well as CO2-driven warming, implying a long post-LIA transient warming. Second half of the 20th century is the period of highest solar activity in the last 8000 years. A link between solar forcing changes and LIA/MWP has been found, so solar variation partially explaining modern warming up to the early 00ies is also plausible.

There is disagreement on if solar variability is "high variability" or "low variability"
Modeling solar activity is challenging because no direct measurements of solar variability exist prior to satellite record from ~1980, and because the record is "grafted" together from a data from many short-lived satellites, (review of challenges given in ch1).
CMIP5 uses a "low-variability" estimate of solar variation "PMOD" based on work by Kopp&Lean,
that has been strongly critized(ch9) for being an unverified theoretical model which implements alterations not recognized by the original experimental teams to drifts that are postulated but not verified. The alternative to "PMOD" are "high-variability" TSI-estimates such as that of Hoyt&Schatten that agree with "ACRIM" satellite data. Evidence that high-variability TSI-estimates are more accurate are:

• "low-variability" TSI-changes appear amplified 5-7 times in oceans,
  
• "high-variability" TSI is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient, and
  
• "low-variability" TSI-changes are too small to explain MWP/LIA temperature changes (AppendixB).
  
  Solar forcing variability is key to climate modeling, because just a 0.3% (5 W/m2) increase is enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (283 degC), a gain of ~0.2 degC per W/m2.
  "High-variability" TSI vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries, and could thus explain 50-80% of observed modern warming.
  
  CMIP5 models are running hot as solar activity falls, indicating that variability in their solar forcing estimate is too low. Because solar forcing and CO2-concentrations co-incident rise 1850-2000, underestimating climate solar sensitivity would wrongfully raise CO2-sensitivity (ECS),explaining why:
  
  
• as solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ), CMIP5 models have run warm. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a)(A comparison of temperature and "hot" CMIP5 model predictions can be found here)),
  
• larger-than-life ECS were needed to fit data pre-2000: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report), and why
  
• CMIP5 underestimates solar-induced LIA/MWP in hindcasts.
  
  Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS<1.5. "Hoyt&Schatten" TSI-estimate results in ECS of 0.44. Paleo-analysis of climate, CO2 and sun variability similarly found ECS=0.5.
  
  Persistent flaws in climate research are plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests.
  
  * "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) is temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually (before transients settle). TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 30-40% (or 0.5-0.8 degC). TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5.
  
  ** Estimates of ECS from data prior to 1979 require use of GIS/HADCRUT instrument records, adjusted by proprietary algorithms using climate models and homogenized which can create spurious warming. Audits of these datasets have uncovered data-quality issues, but datasets are generally hard to independently verify. The sea/surface global temperature record is only globally complete for the satellite era. A reason for skepticism is that recent warming is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges. Prior to~1880 proxies are used, but suffer from «the divergence problem» of not describing recent warming.
  
  ***Carbon cycle simulations indicate TCR below 1

I read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Ends-World-Apocalypses-Understand-Extinctions/dp/0062364804

And learned there was multiple epochs of life.

How do you explain this by biblical reckoning, unless you are a liberal Christian that just sees the OT as metaphorical, how can you believe in some ancient rites of "blood sacrifice" anymore as being mandated for humanity? [Jesus is an advancement, a proxy for the past human sacrifices] It is odd with that much scientific knowledge and understanding which past generations had no access too, you still believe this creator needs "blood" to even the system out and "forgive sins". I am not an atheist, in fact I believe there could very well be a higher intelligence, or "creator" of some sort but Christianity is too limited in it's description of it, and sticks to barbaric human found beliefs and practices like human sacrifice. I am technically agnostic, but I find it stranger that Christians believe I will go to hell, for rejecting the god of their definition. The 6 Epochs book told me that the human understanding of this universe is very limited and well Christianity even more so.

With regards to humanity not finding any alien life [YET] some believe disclosure is coming and that they HAVE already but it's been suppressed. Others of course explore the Fermi Paradox. It is possible the life is farther away then we could imagine.

http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2009/10/human-sacrifices-and-death-of-jesus.html

The standard textbook that I think most of us have used in atmospheric dynamics classes is Holton but has a bit of steep learning curve, depending on your background. Another book, that I think is a bit better at easing you into the material is Wiley, and then theres Wallace & Hobbs which is more of an undergraduate book.

Been reading Gwynne Dyer's Climate Wars lately, and it explains in more detail what Neil was talking about -- major refugee crisis, serious food shortages, even numerous major conflicts / war, as people fight for arable land. It's kind of frightening when you think about all the ripple effects this could have.

You'll be hard-pressed to find a better introductory textbook than Wallace & Hobbs. It's a comprehensive and informative introductory tome that still manages to have lots of judiciously chosen pretty pictures.

https://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Science-Second-Introductory-International/dp/012732951X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505767093&sr=8-1&keywords=wallace+and+hobbs+atmospheric+science

And if you want to balance out your view you should also consider both sides

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0521173159

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Observed-impacts-Planet/dp/044453301X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10300308-living-in-denial

http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-Warming-Histories-Technology/dp/067403189X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888732&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Uncertainty-William-Stewart/dp/0976729164/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1597265675

http://www.amazon.com/The-Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate/dp/B001PO66MG/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://knopfdoubleday.com/2012/06/25/global-weirdness-by-climate-central/

http://mark-bowen.com/book_cs.html

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-2-0-Revolution/dp/0312428928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888779&sr=1-1

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/six-degrees-mark-lynas/1100833125

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15856813-overheated

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1608193942

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Contact-Sport-Inside-Climate/dp/1426205406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888885&sr=1-1

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0822351099

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0316353000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888939&sr=1-1

Gwynne Dyer has also written some excellent stuff on climate change.

Here is the mobile version of your link

To watch, i'd recommend and inconvenient truth and Gore's update and the sequel for good basic info, most of the facts can be corroborated. Keep in mind the projections of what will happen are based on estimates and judgement and not always accurate. Just because scientists can get projections wrong doesn't mean the underlying facts are wrong, just that certain assumptions were incorrect. NASA's website also provides a good guide with references. To supplement:

McMann is one author you should check out. I've heard this is good but haven't read it. My field of study focuses more on policies to both mitigate and adapt to climate change, and how to finance those policies, rather than the hard science. I think if you search around in /r/science and /r/environment you'll find some good resources.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0898868092/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?pc_redir=T1 this is a good starting place. And pretty cheap as yell.

The Ends of the World by Peter Brannen.

Just came out recently. Eminently readable.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0062364804/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503059644&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=the+ends+of+the+world+by+peter+brannen&dpPl=1&dpID=61odL1i6CtL&ref=plSrch

>And in all those fields, there is a large number of people studying the issue, using different methods of data collection, and different methods of extrapolating it. And among all of them, there will be a general consensus, and disagreement about certain hypotheses - whether that comes from criticism of methodology, how the theory is applied, how applicable the theory is, etc. Climate science is no different.

It actually is different though. Why is it so hard to be given objective proof? There is talk that adopting a carbon tax will help curb global warming - why will that curb global warming?

>Getting a degree in a related subject would be a start.

You shouldn't have to have a degree to have a concept explained to you. Surely you wouldn't expect a professor to simply assert it is a factual phenomenon as a form of teaching their students?

>Here. This is the first study that NASA are citing. And curiously enough, the results for all the sources in the politifact article comes to above 90%, with the exception of a poll of earth scientists, which states the consensus at 82%, although it rises to over 97% once they cut that sample down to actively publishing climate scientists, and the American Meteorological Society poll, which states the consensus was only at 73%, but once it was narrowed down to actively publishing scientists, rose to 93%.

Well, the first line in the NASA report is this: "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing
climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper" - which is the same as what politifact reported on. It's a huge stretch to go from "97% of all scientists agree" to "97% of publishing climate scientists agree" - in particular when there are current accusations of bias in the climate science world.

That said, it is invariably going to seem like I'm moving a goalpost here, so I'm going to leave the matter to rest. I do appreciate your responses - we had a conversation on the topic, and it would be unfair to ask more of you.

>Here are some links to textbooks on the subject.
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9789400757561 Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.

>http://www.cambridge.org/features/climatechange/textbooks.htm - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159 - Introduction to Modern Climate Change; this is a textbook for beginners at degree level.

I'll check some of them out if I can find a digital copy floating around somewhere - though admittedly, when I asked for proof on it, I didn't mean the 97% figure, rather I meant the soundness of the evidence behind the man-made aspect of man-made climate change. Thanks. :)

human caused climate change isnt real , kid.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Neglected-Sun-Catastrophe-Independent/dp/1909022241

Required reading for you and others like you, OP

https://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet-ebook/dp/B002RI9F0E

1. 97% of researchers that warmist John Cook "surveyed" agree that the globe has probably warmed for the past 100-150 years, and agree that SOME of that warming was caused by human activities. If it's not manipulative to infer from this that 97% agree with the thesis of catastrophic man made global warming, then I don't know what is.
   
   
2. I get my information from books written by various scientists, most recently The Neglected Sun by Fritz Vahrenholt (http://www.amazon.com/The-Neglected-Sun-Catastrophe-Independent/dp/1909022241), although I've read the German version. Also Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.lomborg.com/) and Warren Meyer (http://vimeo.com/8865909)
   
   This just by the by: if you read what Fritz writes about the Spanish Inquisition style techniques and glaringly obvious evasions, and UNBELIEVABLE scumbaggery performed at the IPCC, you'll think twice about ever again listing them as the "most recognized, respected, scientific panel on climate change" with a straight face!

Interesting backpedal from Sen Inhofe here

It's not strictly about scientific consensus. There's a complex line of reasoning you have to agree with to get from the premise of rising CO2 levels to justifying policy targeted at reducing CO2 emissions.

The questions of what we can and should do in terms of government policy, determining a social cost of carbon, the trade-offs between emissions reduction and adaptation, etc. are not strictly scientific questions. The massive uncertainty makes it difficult to establish confidence that any reasonable proposed policies are going to have enough effects to justify the costs.

What you have presented as 'facts' are largely either of no relevance to the points I'm making, or broad summaries or news articles. I don't expect you to prove the case for emissions reductions in a few citations and you shouldn't expect me to refute them with more. There's a tsunami of information on climate change related topics out there and it has taken years for me to understand it as I do. There's obviously lots of information on the risks of climate change because nothing sells news like fear and it is an actual realistic doomsday scenario -- so we shouldn't be surprised to see dozens of articles on every study that remotely hints at some of the more catastrophic climate risks (and lots of funding for such studies). The scientists that think maybe it won't be so bad, or maybe natural variation plays more of a role in current warming than we think, don't make headlines ("everything might be OK" is not a good headline for selling news) and can even be marginalized by their peers for not trying to draw more attention to the issue. If you are genuinely interested in the skeptic argument, I can suggest reading some of the content on the Climate Etc. blog and the book Climate Change: The Facts. If you're a converted alarmist, you can easily dismiss them with a series of ad hominems on the authors, but if you accept the arguments in good faith, you might be a little more optimistic on the future of the climate.

Scientists in the 90s were saying that florida would be underwater by now.

The same beaches i visited in the 90s have not changed a single inch.

These scientists need money to keep their programs going. The UN and the federal government provide them with money if they provide scientific outcomes. Its not hard to get satallite readings of temperature to be different from the actual temperature on the surface.

the reality is climate change is completely out of the hands of the human beings on this planet. Its all up to that rapidly changing ball of fusion floating in space.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1909022241/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=54569892565&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1359857953810142784&hvpone=127.16&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6g2xnszri4_b

>TheDailyCaller.com

Oh my sources don't fall inline with your deluded understanding of the world because you are told by someone that they are not real?

double sigh

9 Things You Need To Know About The Climate Change Hoax

There are real people that explain it and its by a US Senator!!

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future

>Americans are over-regulated and over-taxed. When regulation escalates, the result is an increase in regulators. In other words, bigger government is required to enforce the greater degree of regulation. Bigger government means bigger budgets and higher taxes. More simply doesn't mean better. A perfect example is the entire global warming, climate-change issue, which is an effort to dramatically and hugely increase regulation of each of our lives and business, and to raise our cost of living and taxes. In The Greatest Hoax, Senator James Inhofe will reveal the reasons behind those perpetuating the Hoax of global warming, who is benefitting from the general acceptance of the Hoax and why the premise statements are blatantly and categorically false.

That and oil companies thought "climate change" sounded less scary than "global warming" so they pushed in every way they could to rebrand it. The scientific community was the last to embrace that change.

"Global warming" is the specific theory that greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere will increase overall energy in the system and, in turn, increase global temperatures. Since energy companies depend, at least in the short run, on us pumping out lots of greenhouse gases, that's a scary term for them.

"Climate change" sounds more ambiguous and removes the blame from anybody in particular. Heck, it might even be getting colder.

Edit:

For an unbiased source of the difference in meaning between the two words, see NASA

>Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

>Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

For a discussion on how the oil industry, notably Exxon Mobile, pushed hard for the use of the second term over the first term, see this book