Pessimistic about climate

[The Green Barbarian]

If people had simply believed the science years ago we might have solved this issue by now

Hard to solve a problem that doesn't exist. And given the amount of money involved continually being poured into this fraud, this will never be "solved".

Now, we can only mitigate the problem because we have to keep fighting misinformation and people digging in their heels proclaiming the issue to be a fairy tale.

Or another option - we focus on providing the hundreds of millions of people on this earth with food and potable water. Then we can worry about fairy tales.

[foenix]

I guess it all depends on the cherry picked data......

https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... n-1998.htm

UAH6 is satellite data. No warming for 7 years. More accurate than ever modified GISS.

Here, this is all the time I got right now. Satellite temperature data isn't all it's cracked out to be. They don't even actually measure anything as it's all dependent on inferred algorithms, another words, higher form of guess work. That's why it's prone to different interpretation of it's data.

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data (see Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements). Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites starting with the 1978 TIROS-N, where different satellites had similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satel ... re_dataset

It's called cherry picking your data to find one that suits one's narrative.

[foenix]

I guess it all depends on the cherry picked data......



https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... n-1998.htm

Fifthly, ocean temperatures have been rising since the early 1900's before CO2 was a problem, so how can the issue be CO2? Also from 1940 to 1980 ocean temperatures fell. From 1910 to 1940, ocean warming happened at the same rate as 1980 onward despite higher CO2 levels. Ocean temperatures affect atmospheric temperatures, and not vice versa. We can easily see this every time there is an El Nino or La Nina.

Wait......you spent the first four points writing about how inaccurate ocean temperatures are but here you are in the fifth point, using the same data to further the narrative......hmmmm.....doesn't do much for the cred, hey?

[Y-Wine]

Gullible Suckers. Guess they don't teach how the world was formed and the history of climate change like when I went to school back in the day. Just the left sided political opinion of the educated teachers of the world. The same people running to the store to buy 50 gallons of milk and 20 lbs of butter. Panic in the streets. I'll just sit back and watch the citidiot's perish in the first couple months of a real SHTF event.

[Jlabute]

Pessimistic about climate<---Topic

Not one person here is qualified to analyze this on that level. I'm pessimistic that the public thinks they can "do their own research" and qualify it as equal to those who actually KNOW what they're talking about.

Those involved in climate science have a better understanding of math and physics than those not involved in science climate? Experience in a field helps but there are many unknowns about how climate works. You may think too highly of said group.

They have educations and actual labs

A lot of people have a higher education. I suppose for climate science, the lab is the earth?
Many physical attributes of our planet can't be measured accurately and most data we have is inaccurate and a mess. Nothing will fix this but time, satellites, and coverage. Hard to make a determination about anything without accurate measurements, over a long period of time, and understanding the many unknown principles of operation.

And review each other's findings.

Too much weight is placed on peer-review. MANY studies are retracted after passing peer-review. Once a larger community gets involved (including the 'public') there is more skepticism.

I'm pessimistic that people who aren't qualified to understand the science think they know better than those who have actually researched it.

Not sure what "the science" is. Is that similar to "the experiment"? As a complete body of science a lot of it will be contradictory, incomplete, or wrong.

NO ONE is qualified to analyze the climate as it has never been done. Also, one does not need qualifications or permission to understand. Most who work in climate do so with math and physics and get involved in a particular field. Climate involves numerous fields, too numerous for any one person to get a handle. Scientists are also in a category of people called "the public". Scientists also make many assumptions about climate because there are many things we don't yet understand. This leads to a variety of views the worse of which are hijacked by politicians.

Climate scientists and their studies show us a great deal of our physical planet. Climate Scientists come in a spectrum of beliefs because climate science is so complicated and they have their own assumptions about how things work. The spectrum covers everything from doomed in a 18 months to don't worry about it. Climate is so complicated, we literally have given up and resort to using mathematical models to derive policies... and in case no one has noticed, Canadian model CanESM2 is the most wrong of them all and Andrew Weaver has his fingerprints on it.

[barianqueen]

NO ONE is qualified to analyze the climate as it has never been done.

?

So....then why are there climate scientists? It's an actual field of study.

Scientists are also in a category of people called "the public".

Are you trying to say that members of the public with no scientific training can be called scientists?

[crookedmember]

Not sure what "the science" is. Is that similar to "the experiment"? As a complete body of science a lot of it will be contradictory, incomplete, or wrong.

Science is putting together puzzles using all available data over decades and centuries.

Science isn't cherry picking trash from youtube cranks and pseudo-science blogs. Science isn't someone telling you what you want to hear.

[The Green Barbarian]

Science isn't someone telling you what you want to hear.

Except in the case of the man-made climate change fraud. Then, most definitely this is happening. Junk science is telling gullible fools and the total shysters raking billions out of this fraud exactly what they want to hear.