Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Geoff.D]

i remember watching a documentary on this at some stage where they explained this in very layman terms, had pretty pictures and animations and satellite images to show what they meant. ...lol

here are some links where it seems to be done by some professionals in the field.

http://ammrf.org.au/featured/clouds-from-coral/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6953-coral-reefs-create-clouds-to-control-the-climate/

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ratures_and_Climate_in_the_Great_Barrier_Reef

https://m.scirp.org/papers/77020


all i am implying by this is that we do have some affect on it. surely all of these small affects we have on different things add up around the world. i personally do not think that our various actions are so insignificant that it almost "dissolves" in the greater scheme of things. maybe a few hundred years ago yes.

Excellent references on the subject. These studies end up drawing the following conclusion, which suggests that the bleaching of coral in the GBR has very little to do with the changes in pH which is implied in the "Ocean Acidification" claims.

yet ask any laymen on the street why coral is being bleached and he will answer it is because the oceans are being acidified by the increased amounts of CO2 dissolving in the oceans.

The key conclusion in these references is this statement:

The net radiative forcing from clouds can be as high as four times as large as the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which needs to be taken into account when ascribing coral bleaching events in the GBR solely to GHG warming. Further studies are needed to more critically assess the importance of this GBR coral reef-cloud feedback to the climate of northern Australia and the western Pacific, where the greatest biomass of coral reefs occurs.

Has it been taken into account in the latest AR5? Even on a regional basis? I don't know, I will have to check. But if it has I am prepared to bet that it is played down because it does not "fit" the current narrative associated with the acidifying of the oceans as being the cause of coral bleaching.

More fake news I wonder hmmmm.

 

[Geoff.D]

How does fake news arise?
Well here is an example.

Ethiopia planted 224 million trees in one day as part of their campaign to plant 4 billion trees this summer as part of a campaign to restore the country's landscape. So far 2.4 billion trees have been planted in Ethiopia.

https://www.independent.ie/world-ne...-beat-effects-of-climate-change-38355103.html

The magic words "Climate Change" are used in the article. The project is part of a campaign to try and reverse the deforestation going on as well as to combat some of the effects of Climate Change.

So The SABC whether guy this morning then claims that planting 200 million trees per year will fix Climate Change.

If you look all over the Internet you find statements like this.
"200 million trees planted per year will stop climate change"
"Planting trees consumes 48 pounds of CO2 per year you can help by planting trees clean the air and fight climate change."
"planting trees help reduce your personal Carbon footprint"
"Researchers estimated 200 billion tons of Carbon could be stored provided we plant over a trillion trees."
Source: "realclimate.org"

In that same article, the author tries to say (somewhere in the fine print) that unfortunately, it is also too good to be true. but the title of the article and the initial paragraphs have done the damage. No one reads the rest of the article to place it all into context. Real Climate tries its best to combat this fake news by trying to place the whole reforestation campaign into perspective, dealing with all the negative aspects of such a process in terms of the impact on water resources etc.

It is a losing battle. The CC lot have their marketing campaigns completely wrong.

The real experts on the subject of Forests are generally ignored by the IPCC in their processes.

 

[lumeer]

How does fake news arise?
Well here is an example.

Ethiopia planted 224 million trees in one day as part of their campaign to plant 4 billion trees this summer as part of a campaign to restore the country's landscape. So far 2.4 billion trees have been planted in Ethiopia.

https://www.independent.ie/world-ne...-beat-effects-of-climate-change-38355103.html

The magic words "Climate Change" are used in the article. The project is part of a campaign to try and reverse the deforestation going on as well as to combat some of the effects of Climate Change.

So The SABC whether guy this morning then claims that planting 200 million trees per year will fix Climate Change.

If you look all over the Internet you find statements like this.
"200 million trees planted per year will stop climate change"
"Planting trees consumes 48 pounds of CO2 per year you can help by planting trees clean the air and fight climate change."
"planting trees help reduce your personal Carbon footprint"
"Researchers estimated 200 billion tons of Carbon could be stored provided we plant over a trillion trees."
Source: "realclimate.org"

In that same article, the author tries to say (somewhere in the fine print) that unfortunately, it is also too good to be true. but the title of the article and the initial paragraphs have done the damage. No one reads the rest of the article to place it all into context. Real Climate tries its best to combat this fake news by trying to place the whole reforestation campaign into perspective, dealing with all the negative aspects of such a process in terms of the impact on water resources etc.

It is a losing battle. The CC lot have their marketing campaigns completely wrong.

The real experts on the subject of Forests are generally ignored by the IPCC in their processes.

Those numbers (planting 200 million trees in one day, planting 4 billion trees in the summer) don't make sense.

 

[Gordon_R]

This article probably won't change entrenched opionions, but gives an overview of climate change science, and some of the denialist strategies, from a local perspective: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...e-inside-the-mind-of-a-climate-geek-part-one/

New findings released this month by the journal Nature Communications reveal that English-language digital and print media give 49% more coverage to bush-league climate contrarians than top scientists. We asked Professor Guy Midgley, a Stellenbosch University expert on how biodiversity responds to the climate crisis.

Q: So what’s making the latest batch of models more climate-sensitive, and therefore, more useful?

A: As I understand it, the new models incorporate energy feedback from clouds more efficiently and more realistically. The net effect is that a more responsive warming to rising CO2 is being projected than before. In fact, we have a good idea from hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data that there’s a good correlation between CO2 concentration and atmospheric temperature.

So, that’s not very good news for us, but it’s a moving target and climate science is evolving. For instance, I think it’s fair to say that we don’t fully understand yet how responsive the atmosphere is to CO2, but we do know with virtual certainty that rising CO2 is causing warming.

Earth-system science is such a complex and multi-faceted area and there are all sorts of tricks you can use to confuse people — fossil fuel emission uncertainties and clouds and ocean circulation and model sensitivity.

But none of the sceptics will take the record from 1991 to 1998 and say, “Ooh, global warming’s accelerated.” They’d rather take the period from 1998 to 2012 and say, “Ah! Global warming has gone away!” We call that “cherry-picking”. If somebody makes that argument, either the person genuinely doesn’t understand the science, or they do understand the science and they’re trying to fool you. For both of those eventualities that person is not worth listening to as an expert.

For example, in the northern hemisphere the preponderance of evidence shows that wild species have been shifting their geographic ranges — the areas where they naturally occur — towards the pole and upwards in elevation when that’s available to them, because they’re tracking their preferred “climate space”; and that the quantum of those range shifts matches the predictions from the climate models.

There are people who say the temperature records have been fiddled with to show global warming and to argue that point you have to argue that the wild species in the northern hemisphere have also been duped by that fraud because they’re all responding in the way they should [laughs].

With respect to rainfall projections, however, one of the few exceptions at the regional scale is the Western Cape, where the models predict the entire westerly frontal systems are likely to start moving south, thus creating conditions of a greater frequency of drought in this part of the world.

This also holds for other Mediterranean-climate areas of the world like Western Australia, South America, California and the Mediterranean itself. This is one of the most consistent and well agreed weather-system shifts that occurs. The circulation from the poles to the tropics is strengthened and it pushes the fronts more towards the south.

Q: To what extent do these extreme individual events create honest signals of larger climate breakdown?

A: There’s no question that the trends we’re seeing in rainfall indicate much more intense events, but, interestingly, also longer dry spells between them. So, even where you don’t get a change in rainfall, you’re seeing a concentration of rain into shorter, sharper events with flooding — and then the dry spells in between can seal off the soils, so you get this increased run-off effect.

We’ve seen flooding in Joburg, more broadly in Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal, for example. This terrible recent sequence of cyclones that hit Mozambique has also brought home the reality of these risks. And we’re only in 2019. Let’s say this doesn’t bode well. If extreme weather does occur over the next few decades, we’re going to have to be ready.

Look at the drought in Makhanda. Cape Town nearly ran out of water. The likelihood of a Cape Town drought was something we identified in 2000 when we were doing some work for local government and looked at rainfall records going back to the 1920s. We saw this very significant natural drought in the 1920s and 1930s and it was obvious that, with warmer temperatures and more people, Cape Town could run into problems.

 

[rietrot]

This article probably won't change entrenched opionions, but gives an overview of climate change science, and some of the denialist strategies, from a local perspective: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...e-inside-the-mind-of-a-climate-geek-part-one/

Complains about cherry picking then cherry picks himself.
Ridiculous recency bias talking about dry spell and the hurricane over Mozambique without acknowledging we had exactly the same happen in the 80's.

 

[access]

Ridiculous recency bias talking about dry spell and the hurricane over Mozambique without acknowledging we had exactly the same happen in the 80's

yeah i remember something about that, was a bit young though, but can remember the pics and vids on the news with everything flooded. was wondering why nobody mentioned it when pointing at the moz hurricane. arent the rate of occurrences of these events in general escalating? 20 or 30 years surely isnt that long when talking about these things.

 

[rietrot]

yeah i remember something about that, was a bit young though, but can remember the pics and vids on the news with everything flooded. was wondering why nobody mentioned it when pointing at the moz hurricane. arent the rate of occurrences of these events in general escalating? 20 or 30 years surely isnt that long when talking about these things.

I don't think we have enough data to say for sure what is normal and what would be an increase. Even for big events like a hurricane.

 

[access]

I don't think we have enough data to say for sure what is normal and what would be an increase. Even for big events like a hurricane.

this could also be true

 

[Geoff.D]

The article is actually very well balanced and certainly far more credible than much of the rhetoric contained in the IPCC reports.
I wonder why Gordon_R chose to quote the bits he did, leaving out other bits? His own bias leading to "cherry-picking"?
The quotes create the impression that Midgley is "cherry-picking" which he is not. What he is actually showing how easy it is for climate deniers AND those pushing the CC agenda to conveniently "cherry-pick" what reinforces the particular view they want you to take note of.

In other words, the "cherry-picking" knife has two edges!

The IPCC models used in the past very conveniently for many, glossed over many factors and came up with some plainly ridiculous scenarios as a result.
The newer models are becoming more representative of what is going on and therefore more accurate at reflecting how the weather systems work. And you cannot isolate the weather from the CC argument as many try to do.

I don’t think any modeller would claim their model is 100% spot-on. Models try to simplify and synthesise complex processes so that they can come up with useful predictions. Models are either useful or not useful, but they’re never perfect — the complexity of nature is beyond what models can capture in all details.

To get a perfect prediction, you must measure everything with absolute precision and, even if you’re out by, say, 0.000001% in the measurement of so-called “initial conditions”, the model will deviate from reality after a certain amount of time.

This is part one. Looking forward to the other parts when they materialise.


The IPCC has certainly in previous reports, before the investigation and their own internal issues led to a shake-up of how the IPCC chooses or not to take notice of scientists that disagree with the current consensus, improved the quality of their analysis and what they include in their reports.

 

[rietrot]

The article is actually very well balanced and certainly far more credible than much of the rhetoric contained in the IPCC reports.

The article is a opinion piece. I give up.

 

[Geoff.D]

The article is a opinion piece. I give up.

So is 90% or more of the IPCC reports on CC! Opinions are what drives social media! What exactly is your point?
And I am talking about the prof, not the journalist.

 

[Ponderer]

The issue be whether or not Carbon (CO2) Emissions is the cause of (causes) Global Warming.
Although it is widely accepted that CO2 emissions is the principal/primary/main reason for the Global Warming phenomena, it is by means a (scientifically proven) fact - it is only speculation.
Different data is interpreted differently by different people to derive different conclusions, and everyone claims that their conclusion is (based on) science.
Different scientists therefore say different things.

Science does not and cannot lie, but scientists can (and quite often do).

The question is what does science (as to scientists) say about it.
Is it a (scientifically proven) fact that CO2 emissions is the principal/primary/main reason for Global Warming?
I don't think so.

 

[Sideshow Bob]

Those numbers (planting 200 million trees in one day, planting 4 billion trees in the summer) don't make sense.

Absolutely. None of the numbers make sense. Most of the reports say thousands turned up for the event, not millions as claimed.

If 23 million people took part (Really?) as mentioned in bbc article, then it would be possible.

Deforestation: Did Ethiopia plant 350 million trees in a day?

Ethiopia says millions took part in a nationwide scheme to tackle deforestation - how did it work?

www.bbc.com

More than 23 million of Ethiopia's 105 million people took part, says Dr Tefera Mengistu, the National Forest Sector Development Program coordinator.

 

[Geoff.D]

The key issue for me still about the CC debate is how easily the IPPC and the ACC brigade write off the largest GHGs which is plain old fashioned water vapour.
The arguments that are offered as to why water vapour is "ignored" generally in the analyses are really very poor.

Nowhere have I seen anyone, for example, use an argument about the possible catalytic effect of CO2 in the process. That argument would make more sense than many of the current staple arguments used by the ACC. brigade.

ACC == Anthropenic Climate Change -- used to in part to try and differentiate between natural climate change and ACC.
CC == Climate Change
GHG(s) == GreenHouse Gas(ses)

When the models properly take into account water vapour, I will start really taking notice of the doomsayers.
The latest models are getting closer to representing cloud cover better.

 

[rietrot]

Absolutely. None of the numbers make sense. Most of the reports say thousands turned up for the event, not millions as claimed.

If 23 million people took part (Really?) as mentioned in bbc article, then it would be possible.

Deforestation: Did Ethiopia plant 350 million trees in a day?

Ethiopia says millions took part in a nationwide scheme to tackle deforestation - how did it work?

www.bbc.com

I remember a national tree planting day when we were young. The schools used to participate so that would give great participation numbers.

 

[Gordon_R]

The key issue for me still about the CC debate is how easily the IPPC and the ACC brigade write off the largest GHGs which is plain old fashioned water vapour.
The arguments that are offered as to why water vapour is "ignored" generally in the analyses are really very poor.

Nowhere have I seen anyone, for example, use an argument about the possible catalytic effect of CO2 in the process. That argument would make more sense than many of the current staple arguments used by the ACC. brigade.

ACC == Anthropenic Climate Change -- used to in part to try and differentiate between natural climate change and ACC.
CC == Climate Change
GHG(s) == GreenHouse Gas(ses)

When the models properly take into account water vapour, I will start really taking notice of the doomsayers.
The latest models are getting closer to representing cloud cover better.

Clouds have a much larger feedback than water vapour (both positive and negative), and higher humidity produces more clouds, so I really don't think that is a valid argument. Already quoted above:

the new models incorporate energy feedback from clouds more efficiently and more realistically.

 

[Geoff.D]

Agree and I stated the same. The new models are better at representing or accounting for cloud cover. Now do the same for water vapour instead of just writing it off as "inconsequential" as is currently the case in quite a few IPCC documents.

 

[Ponderer]

Agree and I stated the same. The new models are better at representing or accounting for cloud cover. Now do the same for water vapour instead of just writing it off as "inconsequential" as is currently the case in quite a few IPCC documents.

Yeah - 100% agree.
It's the other way round.
The "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric CO2 is so small that it is negligible compared to the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric H2O.

 

[rietrot]

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently dismissed a defamation lawsuit by celebrity climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann against global warming skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Mann must pay the full legal costs to the defendant. The ruling is explosive because it means that Ball’s claim that Mann was a scientific fraudster is now supported by the court.

Okay so the silly "hockey stick" man made climate change is officially dead.

 

[Geoff.D]

So, the messages for me are:
1. It is not worth making stupid comments designed to be weak attempts at humour about anyone's views on social media. The case went in favour of the humorist ythis time but could easily have backfired. Take not fellow forumites on myBB.

2. The hockey stick saga, has done immense damage to the IPCC simply as a result of the way in which it operated. Just beacuse of a refusal to release the original data.
3. The IPCC has now been thoroughly exposed st conveniently choosing data and an analysis method to ensure an outcome that suits their agenda. Even if that conclusion is proven to be reasonably accurate later on, the damage has been done.
4. Do not ignore dissenting scientists, take note of their objections and address their views. That way, no one is isolated. In this case a far better outcome results, Moore acceptable to all scientists.