My Hurricane Ian Prediction

Well, where are the links, and why aren't these dissenting views presented on the websites of the AGU or NAS or other professional organizations of relevant scientists?

The scientists I have seen come forward to object tend to specialize in irrelevant fields and have failed to publish their analyses.

The data overwhelmingly disputes what you say.
No it doesn't.

Since you want AGU, here you go:

And
 
Well, yes, there is such a thing as settled science. Would anyone get on a plane if aerodynamics was not considered settled?

Is this thread about aerodynamics? Is there nothing more to learn about this from a science perspective?
And yes, as more data is accumulated, the conclusions of climate science are more supported.

You mean like they never got anything right? Yea, that fact is settled from the data collected.
 
Sure, in the earlier days of this field, predictions were wrong, but the trendlines were right.

Nothing has been right.
The ice caps and glaciers are melting, the seas are rising, farming is having to adapt and animals are migrating to different climes.

Ice caps are fine, as are glaciers. Polar bears that Al Gore said would all die off are thriving and the climate alarmists were and are all wrong. STILL.
 
Well, yes, there is such a thing as settled science. Would anyone get on a plane if aerodynamics was not considered settled?

And yes, as more data is accumulated, the conclusions of climate science are more supported.
No, there is not. "Settled" is antithetical to science. "Settled" is what occurs when people like you pervert science and turn it into a religion where the "settled science" is your Holy and infallible scripture
 
No it doesn't.

Since you want AGU, here you go:

And
An AGU journal published a paper indicating that predicted warming rates were higher than observed. The paper does not say that human-induced warming is not occurring.

In fact that AGU has a position statement on their website confirming their conclusion that human-induced warming is occurring and that it is dangerous.

The Evidence

Over the past century, as a result of burning fossil fuels and other human activities, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases—including CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons—have risen to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Extensive observations document that the global average surface temperature in the atmosphere and ocean has increased by about 1°C (1.8°F) from 1880 to 2018. The current decade is now the hottest in the history of modern civilization. Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence.

Many other changes related to heating have been documented: more frequent heat waves on land and in the ocean; reductions in Arctic sea ice, the Northern Hemisphere’s snow cover, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, and mountain glaciers; changes in the global water cycle, including intensifying
precipitation events; and rising sea levels. Greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are also affecting the growth and nutritional value of land plants and are directly acidifying ocean waters.

The Predictions

Realistic and continually improving computer simulations of the global climate predict that global temperatures will continue to rise as a result of past and future greenhouse gas emissions, with growing risks to natural and human systems
. The amount of warming predicted in the coming decades depends primarily on the choices society makes and how those choices affect future emissions.

The Consequences

Human-caused climate change is occurring more rapidly than has been typical in Earth’s history, disrupting communities and ecosystems adapted to previous, relatively stable climatic conditions. The changing climate will increase heat-related deaths, various mental and physical illnesses, and some infectious diseases. It will accentuate hazards such as flooding, wildfire, and dryland water scarcity, and toxic algae. Economic disruption and additional health impacts will result from shifts in agricultural and fisheries productivity, diminished worker productivity, damages to critical infrastructure, and more severe weather disasters, including expected increases in drought and hurricane intensities. Economic or social disruption is likely to drive migration and compound risks of conflict and global insecurity. Climate change will continue to severely stress the world’s ecosystems, including threatened coral reefs, permafrost landscapes and the Arctic; decrease biodiversity; and cause extraordinary numbers of extinctions on land and in the oceans. The severity of these and other impacts will worsen with more warming.

Climate change is manifest in myriad ways that exacerbate many existing challenges, stressing every region of the world and every sector of the economy. Some populations, communities, regions, and ecosystems are especially vulnerable. As lower-income and other marginalized populations are likely to be more affected and generally have less capacity to adapt to changes, climate change is expected to worsen pre-existing inequalities.

I see no qualifiers in there stating that all these things could be natural events unrelated to human activity. Or that this is nothing to be concerned about.
 
An AGU journal published a paper indicating that predicted warming rates were higher than observed. The paper does not say that human-induced warming is not occurring.

In fact that AGU has a position statement on their website confirming their conclusion that human-induced warming is occurring and that it is dangerous.



I see no qualifiers in there stating that all these things could be natural events unrelated to human activity. Or that this is nothing to be concerned about.
See right there you are creating a strawman. I never stated there is no human influence on warming. This is what all you religious CAGWers do.
 
No, there is not. "Settled" is antithetical to science. "Settled" is what occurs when people like you pervert science and turn it into a religion where the "settled science" is your Holy and infallible scripture
You don't think aerodynamics is settled enough to trust that planes can fly?

I do not begin each day in the lab trying to reinvent the wheel. I accept the conclusions of previous experiements and use those conclusions to design nextgen experiments. If those experiments give odd results, I might question the previous results. That is how science works at the cutting edge. However, much of science has been so well established that it is accepted.
 
You don't think aerodynamics is settled enough to trust that planes can fly?
And the strawman continue. Perhaps you didn't know it but we're still discovering things about aerodynamics every day that we had no clue about. Until pretty recently we had no clue how a bumblebee manah3dbto be airborne. We're discovering new things about Pterosaur locomotion and flight all the time. There is no such thing as 'settled' in science. Indeed it is antithetical to the scientific method
I do not begin each day in the lab trying to reinvent the wheel. I accept the conclusions of previous experiements and use those conclusions to design nextgen experiments. If those experiments give odd results, I might question the previous results. That is how science works at the cutting edge. However, much of science has been so well established that it is accepted.
See above.
 
And the strawman continue. Perhaps you didn't know it but we're still discovering things about aerodynamics every day that we had no clue about. Until pretty recently we had no clue how a bumblebee manah3dbto be airborne. We're discovering new things about Pterosaur locomotion and flight all the time. There is no such thing as 'settled' in science. Indeed it is antithetical to the scientific method

See above.
I never said we are not learning new things about aerodynamics. We are obviously adding new design features to planes, but we have no reason to doubt the science that allows planes to fly. Same in other fields. As I pointed out, I don't start off every day by questioning the most basic concepts in my field. I work at the outer edges to refine what we know, which is the same with the examples you cite.
 
I never said we are not learning new things about aerodynamics. We are obviously adding new design features to planes, but we have no reason to doubt the science that allows planes to fly. Same in other fields. As I pointed out, I don't start off every day by questioning the most basic concepts in my field. I work at the outer edges to refine what we know, which is the same with the examples you cite.
Not just new things about aerodynamics but new things about its workings that required reworking of what we thought we knew.

The use of terms like "settled" are very dangerous and not used by credible scientists, only by followers of Scientism.
 
If you do not recognize the danger, then yes, you are minimizing what is happening.
Fear mongering.

One of your low intelligence komrads posted pics of Hurrican damage in Canada. The structures flimsy and; any architectural engineer would NEVER ever approve of the construction near the coast.

Your hate group spent 1 year minimizing adverse Clot shot events. Nasty.
 
Not just new things about aerodynamics but new things about its workings that required reworking of what we thought we knew.

The use of terms like "settled" are very dangerous and not used by credible scientists, only by followers of Scientism.
Dr Tim Ball just passed away. Very old scientist.

He had a great line. If the "Science is settled" there is no reason to send them more research funding.
 
Well, yes, there is such a thing as settled science. Would anyone get on a plane if aerodynamics was not considered settled?

And yes, as more data is accumulated, the conclusions of climate science are more supported.
You are trying to argue that if one part of science is settled, then all science is settled. That is so absurd.
 
Back
Top