Failed climate predictions from false prophets

[truthpls]

... we call them "climate deniers." Maybe your coven is different, but most aren't.

You call people what you like. I would call people that believe bible prophesy and dismiss proven false prophets sane and rational and godly.

That's the difference between science and superstition. In science, when predictions are validated by evidence they are accepted as true.

False prophesies were never validated. The predictions that did come close have no validity because they did not evidence the cause. And they were part of a collection of predictions that covered all possibilities. (except the truth). Along comes you, who tries to lift out of this pile only predictions that seem to have been close! No. You must stand behind the whole pile of 'science based' predictions.

If you think so, she fooled you.

And we accept the predictions of the great majority of climatologists because their predictions were confirmed by subsequent events.
There will always be those who don't agree. Point is, most climatologists, even in the 1970s, were correct in predicting warming, while deniers were predicting cooling. If you're smart, you go with the guys who have a record of getting it right.

No. we don't! We reject all prophets and groups of prophets containing false prophets, as charlatans and cads and bible haters

Not all deniers claim to be prophets. Most of them are merely wrong, not religious cranks.

How many of those people you labeled 'deniers' deny a warming trend? Ha.

Polls don't determine science. Predictions that are confirmed determine science.

Grabbing a few predictions from a heap of predictions of various and conflicting variety is not confirming anything. It is displaying cognitive dissonance and denial and stubborn rebellion against God and His word as well as reality.

It just so happens that the great majority of climatologists got it right even 50 years ago. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.

No one cares what a supposed majority in a pile of prophets (many of whom were ridiculously false) think. Sorry to break that to you.

In science, it's the only deal. Theories that work are accepted. Those that don't work are discarded.

Theories that have no basis in evidence such as why the cause of a warming trend must be solely due to man and farting cows may be cherished and accepted and worshiped by some people wearing a science tee shirt. However, the festering pile of false prophesies and prophets that make up part of science are rejected by honest people out of hand.

Believers will never accept lies and flimsy false science plucked carefully from a pile that is riddled with false predictions and overtly godless 'agenda over truth and actual science' types.

 

[The Barbarian]

You call people what you like.

Maybe you should be careful about that.

I would call people that believe bible prophesy

You are not a biblical prophet.

dismiss proven false prophets

And scientists are not prophets at all.

The predictions that did come close have no validity because they did not evidence the cause.

In science, predictions that are validated by subsequent events are considered true. Go figure.

Along comes you, who tries to lift out of this pile only predictions that seem to have been close!

I'm merely pointing out that this process works better than anything else humans can do, to explain the natural world. Notice your deniers have repeatedly been shown to be wrong by subsequent events.

And we accept the predictions of the great majority of climatologists because their predictions were confirmed by subsequent events.
There will always be those who don't agree. Point is, most climatologists, even in the 1970s, were correct in predicting warming, while deniers were predicting cooling. If you're smart, you go with the guys who have a record of getting it right.

No one cares what a supposed majority

As you learned, even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists realized warming was coming. Your false prophets denied this. But events showed the climatologists were right and your prophets were wrong.

Theories that have no basis in evidence such as why the cause of a warming trend must be solely due to man

Comes down to evidence. It is well-documented that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. Would you like to learn how we know this? Your false prophets were, as you admit, ridiculously false.

and farting cows

That's your superstition. Is it any wonder that rational people laugh at such "prophets?"

Believers will never accept lies and flimsy false science plucked carefully from a pile that is riddled with false predictions

And yet you say you are a believer, and you accepted all of it. I get that you're upset that the predictions of climatologists have been verified, and the predictions of your false prophets have not come true. But objecting to the truth won't do anything at all.

 

[Tuur]

You know what's GREAT though? If you take the aggregate of ALL of the models and you find the AVERAGE of ALL the model outputs, it actually mirrors really really, REALLY well!

Ah, no. There was a study years ago that found climate models had less accuracy than a random walk. In other words, performance was worse than guessing.

Note: This was years ago. Model accuracy may or may not have changed. since then.

What hasn't changed is what climatologists call "Hollywoodization" of climate predictions. Those are the over-the-top wild predictions that don't even agree with climate models. Worse, they are surprisingly easy to fact check, sometimes with nothing more than knowing the elevation of an area and dividing by the predicted sea level rise.

Then there are outliers. Was surprised to stumble across an observed high for Savannah, Georgia, in the early 1750s and find it tied with the official high set in the 1980s. That there wasn't a change in peak temperature in over 230 years is significant, but I doubt will be addressed.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah, no. There was a study years ago that found climate models had less accuracy than a random walk. In other words, performance was worse than guessing.

No. The classic model is Hanson's NASA prediction, with three scenarios, depending on what we did in the future. It was remarkably accurate. But here's a graph showing how climate models did generally, with the actual subsequent data as well as explaining past temperatures:

That sure doesn't look like a random walk, does it? The aggregate of all models was nearly as good as Hanson's model.

What hasn't changed is what climatologists call "Hollywoodization" of climate predictions. Those are the over-the-top wild predictions that don't even agree with climate models. Worse, they are surprisingly easy to fact check, sometimes with nothing more than knowing the elevation of an area and dividing by the predicted sea level rise.

Until very recently, sea rise was mostly the result of thermal expansion by warming seas. Now, as continental glaciers begin rapidly melting, that's going to change gradually. The joker in the deck is Antarctic ice shelves. They are weakening. If one collapses, there will be a sudden rise, depending on which shelf breaks off and melts.

Then there are outliers. Was surprised to stumble across an observed high for Savannah, Georgia, in the early 1750s and find it tied with the official high set in the 1980s. That there wasn't a change in peak temperature in over 230 years is significant,

By definition, outliers are not significant. Every year, we get local record highs and lows somewhere. But global temperatures continue to post new record highs.

In statistics, an outlier is a data point that differs significantly from other observations. An outlier may be due to a variability in the measurement, an indication of novel data, or it may be the result of experimental error; the latter are sometimes excluded from the data set. An outlier can be an indication of exciting possibility, but can also cause serious problems in statistical analyses.

 

[truthpls]

Maybe you should be careful about that.

That was you calling some people deniers.

You are not a biblical prophet.

Is that what we must be to get through to you?

And scientists are not prophets at all.

Yet they predict falsely. Call them what you like. It is what it is

In science, predictions that are validated by subsequent events are considered true. Go figure.

That does not mean that you grab whoever hits it closest from your bag of science prophets.

I'm merely pointing out that this process works better than anything else humans can do, to explain the natural world. Notice your deniers have repeatedly been shown to be wrong by subsequent events.

What process? The voices from science are conflicted. You thought that explained something?

And we accept the predictions of the great majority of climatologists because their predictions were confirmed by subsequent events.

That means you ignore the other predictions also from science that failed.

There will always be those who don't agree.

If science can't get it together don't blame me.

Point is, most climatologists, even in the 1970s, were correct in predicting warming, while deniers were predicting cooling. If you're smart, you go with the guys who have a record of getting it right.

And others predicting neutral change. In other words they predicted it all, and you chose to ignore the false prophets and pretend the lucky ones are the only true scotsmen. (scientists)

Comes down to evidence. It is well-documented that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. Would you like to learn how we know this? Your false prophets were, as you admit, ridiculously false.

Not in the article I posted. They said 48% did not agree with that

That's your superstition. Is it any wonder that rational people laugh at such "prophets?"

You cannot distance yourself from the false predictions in science.

And yet you say you are a believer, and you accepted all of it.

A believer in God. Not false prophets of 'science' that speak out of both sides of their mouths, disagree with other scientists, and then pretend they all sing together in perfect harmony

I get that you're upset that the predictions of climatologists have been verified, and the predictions of your false prophets have not come true. But objecting to the truth won't do anything at all.

Nothing is verified, it is a con. That is verified. The string of false prophets prove that in spades. Realizing that a warming trend exists is not predicting. Nor does it mean the warming is due to whatever pet causes they decide to attribute it to.

 

[Tuur]

Nothing is verified, it is a con. That is verified. The string of false prophets prove that in spades. Realizing that a warming trend exists is not predicting. Nor does it mean the warming is due to whatever pet causes they decide to attribute it to.

They wade by faith and not by sight?

 

[The Barbarian]

That was you calling some people deniers.

That's what you call people who deny things.

Nothing is verified, it is a con.

As you learned, James Hanson called the warming trend precisely right, thirty years in advance. Your guys said there would be cooling or no change. But even in the 1970s, climatologists knew warming was on the way.

Realizing that a warming trend exists is not predicting.

But calling it thirty years in advance is predicting. And getting it right that far out is very good confirmation that they have it right. You went with guys who got it wrong. Learn from this. And be more careful about following false prophets.

 

[truthpls]

They wade by faith and not by sight?

To be generous, one would have to say so. A more sinister view might be that some of them are on the payroll of an agenda

 

[truthpls]

That's what you call people who deny things.

Climate does and has changed a lot in this world. The recent changes are not something that warrants giving up meat and destroying economies and fearmongering to kids about, etc. There are also voices from science that question the causes of the trend. You seem to think that people who do not accept the opinion of some scientists (while dismissing the opinion of others) means we are 'deniers'. That is a misuse of English language.

As you learned, James Hanson called the warming trend precisely right, thirty years in advance. Your guys said there would be cooling or no change. But even in the 1970s, climatologists knew warming was on the way.

I have no guys. Your guy was one voice in many and in that many, many were wrong. False prophets.

But calling it thirty years in advance is predicting.

And calling it wrong was also predicting. We take the prophets as a whole, not pick out one that guessed the trend for possibly the wrong reasons.

Show the science that rules out solar activity and all other causes?

 

[The Barbarian]

Climate does and has changed a lot in this world.

The point is that climatologists accurately predicted the warming trend and its primary cause. And the changes will have consequences. In the short run, there will be winners and losers. In the long run, it will be a hard lesson for humanity.

The recent changes are not something that warrants giving up meat and destroying economies

They don't warrant putting up boogeyman fences,either. Can we go back to reality for a bit? It's very unlikely, in the next few decades, that we'll not have enough feed to produce meat. And while the economies of many nations, such as the United States will be adversely affected, it's unlikely to "destroy" them. You'll do much better when you come back to the real.

There are also voices from science that question the causes of the trend.

Early on, they were denying the trend. Now that which they denied is observably happening,they switched the story to "well, O.K., it's happening, but it's not CO2; it's (the sun, cow flatus, Martian dust storms, BLM, Al Gore's SUV, etc.)"

You seem to think that people who do not accept the opinion of some scientists (while dismissing the opinion of others) means we are 'deniers'.

People who deny the consensus of climatologists (as you learned,the great majority of them knew even in the 1970s, that warming was coming) are by definition, deniers. Denial is what deniers do.

That is a misuse of English language.

Well, let's take a look...

denier

noun​

1. One who denies.
   "a denier of a fact, or of the faith, or of Christ"
2. A small copper coin of insignificant value.
3. Person who denies something.

The GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English

Have you considered the possibility that the English language is right and you are wrong?

I have no guys.

You seem to be constantly touting the small minority of scientists (most of whom are not climatologists) who denied that warming was on the way. So yes, your guys.

Your guy was one voice in many and in that many, many were wrong.

As you learned, even in the 1970s, climatologists had overwhelmingly realized that the trend was toward warming. Your guys had it wrong.

But calling it thirty years in advance is predicting, not prophesy.

And calling it wrong was also predicting.

Unless they did so for religious reasons. Then it's prophesy. As you probably know, many cited their religious beliefs in denying that the world was warming.

We take the prophets as a whole, not pick out one that guessed the trend for possibly the wrong reasons.

All of your prophets seem to have gotten it wrong, although at least some of them turned out to be on payroll of an agenda. Would you like some examples? And as you learned, almost all climatologists got it right.

Show the science that rules out solar activity and all other causes?

It doesn't. It's just that carbon emissions happen to be the largest factor now. We went through a solar minimum recently. Normally, that would cause colder climate. But it was unable to reverse the carbon-caused rise; it' only moderated the rate of warming. Now, we're entering a solar maximum. That's not a good thing.

And as I mentioned the melting of the permafrost would release huge amounts of methane, which would accelerate warming, conceivably becoming a bigger factor than CO2. I can see that this is not something you've spent a lot of time studying. It's worth taking a good look at the literature to get up to speed.

 

[truthpls]

The point is that climatologists accurately predicted the warming trend and its primary cause.

The cause is under debate and not agreed upon by all, sorry.
Many things that the alarmists say are a joke as well

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/a/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/7E90482A76C15A7B2D2473E6EDC911C0.refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf

And the changes will have consequences. In the short run, there will be winners and losers. In the long run, it will be a hard lesson for humanity.

The trends are under control of God. He told us the future. The lesson is to trust the creator. Not the frauds.

It's very unlikely, in the next few decades, that we'll not have enough feed to produce meat.

Great. yet the global cabal push the agenda nevertheless.

And while the economies of many nations, such as the United States will be adversely affected, it's unlikely to "destroy" them. You'll do much better when you come back to the real.

Selective destruction. Some benefit, some people and companies go under.

Early on, they were denying the trend. Now that which they denied is observably happening,they switched the story to "well, O.K., it's happening, but it's not CO2; it's (the sun, cow flatus, Martian dust storms, BLM, Al Gore's SUV, etc.)"

No, the trend is warming lately, but the cause is under discussion (except by fanatics). The trend was predicted falsely by some in science. That means science is sidelined here.

People who deny the consensus of climatologists (as you learned,the great majority of them knew even in the 1970s, that warming was coming) are by definition, deniers. Denial is what deniers do.

Science is not majority wins.

Have you considered the possibility that the English language is right and you are wrong?

What you call deniers do not generally deny there is a trend in weather. They deny the reasons you wish to attribute it to. They also deny that man can save the planet or himself. You should deny that also.

You seem to be constantly touting the small minority of scientists (most of whom are not climatologists) who denied that warming was on the way. So yes, your guys.

They count. They use the same science as the rest of the prophets, but did not happen to lucky like many other prophets did.

But calling it thirty years in advance is predicting, not prophesy.

The ones who called neutral or cold also called early. That does nothing to salvage the trashed reputation of science on the issue.

Unless they did so for religious reasons. Then it's prophesy.

No, telling what the future will be like can be called prophesy.

As you probably know, many cited their religious beliefs in denying that the world was warming.

So what? In other words some admitted their predictions were belief based!

All of your prophets seem to have gotten it wrong, although at least some of them turned out to be on payroll of an agenda. Would you like some examples? And as you learned, almost all climatologists got it right.

? My prophets? Who are they? Never met them

It doesn't. It's just that carbon emissions happen to be the largest factor now.

Says who? Some say it is likely not. Why would we accept some science voices and suppress others?

We went through a solar minimum recently. Normally, that would cause colder climate. But it was unable to reverse the carbon-caused rise; it' only moderated the rate of warming. Now, we're entering a solar maximum. That's not a good thing.

Nice story.

And as I mentioned the melting of the permafrost would release huge amounts of methane, which would accelerate warming, conceivably becoming a bigger factor than CO2.

Sounds like Chicken Little philosophy. 'If the CO2 boogeyman doesn't get you, the methane boogeyman will'

I can see that this is not something you've spent a lot of time studying. It's worth taking a good look at the literature to get up to speed.

Best not to memorize false prophesies.

 

[The Barbarian]

The point is that climatologists accurately predicted the warming trend and its primary cause.

The cause is under debate and not agreed upon by all, sorry.

As you learned earlier, James Hanson precisely predicted the rate of warming, thirty years in advance, using only CO2 emissions. Which is why the great majority of climatologists acknowledge the fact.

Science is not majority wins.

Precisely. We know that Hanson is right because his predictions were precisely right. You have it backwards. Almost all climatologists agree with Hanson because he got it right. Hanson isn't right because almost all climatologists agree with him.

The trends are under control of God.

God isn't loading the atmosphere with CO2. Try to stay with reality.

And while the economies of many nations, such as the United States will be adversely affected, it's unlikely to "destroy" them. You'll do much better when you come back to the real.

Selective destruction.

Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, will get wetter and greener. Our coasts will experience more disasters, and the American west will become more arid.

All of your prophets seem to have gotten it wrong, although at least some of them turned out to be on payroll of an agenda. Would you like some examples?

My prophets?

Sure.

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

Documents show Willie Soon, researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center, received total of $1.25m from groups that included Koch brothers foundation

www.theguardian.com

In your own words, "on the payroll of an agenda." Your prophet.

It's just that carbon emissions happen to be the largest factor now.

Says who?

The data...

The ones who called neutral or cold also called early.

But as you see, your guys were wrong. And the climatologists were right. See the data above. Predictions that are verified by later evidence is what science is.

No, telling what the future will be like can be called prophesy.

Well, let's take a look...

prophesy /prŏf′ĭ-sī″/

intransitive verb​

1. To reveal by divine inspiration.
2. To predict the future with certainty. synonym: foretell.

God makes it clear what prophesy is, and it's not what you think it is.

We went through a solar minimum recently. Normally, that would cause colder climate. But it was unable to reverse the carbon-caused rise; it' only moderated the rate of warming.

Nice story.

It's just a fact. Here:

Details here:

A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Research has shown that a grand solar minimum would offset no more than 0.3°C of global warming

www.theguardian.com

And as I mentioned the melting of the permafrost would release huge amounts of methane, which would accelerate warming, conceivably becoming a bigger factor than CO2.

Sounds like Chicken Little philosophy.

That's a testable assumption...

Overall, uncertainties are large, and it is difficult to be conclusive about the time scales and magnitudes of methane feedbacks, but significant increases in methane emissions are likely, and catastrophic emissions cannot be ruled out. We also identify gaps in our scientific knowledge and make recommendations for future research and development in the context of Earth system modeling.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010RG000326

Methane production as key to the greenhouse gas budget of thawing permafrost​

Methane production as key to the greenhouse gas budget of thawing permafrost - Nature Climate Change

An organic carbon decomposition model, calibrated with laboratory incubations, indicates a greater production rate of CO2-C equivalents from waterlogged (compared to drained) permafrost soils, when the higher global warming potential of methane is factored in.

www.nature.com

 

[truthpls]

The point is that climatologists accurately predicted the warming trend and its primary cause.

Prove the cause

As you learned earlier, James Hanson precisely predicted the rate of warming, thirty years in advance, using only CO2 emissions. Which is why the great majority of climatologists acknowledge the fact.

CO2 is on the rise as are temperatures. The relation need not be causal.

Precisely. We know that Hanson is right because his predictions were precisely right. You have it backwards. Almost all climatologists agree with Hanson because he got it right. Hanson isn't right because almost all climatologists agree with him.

Some science prophets said the opposite. I am not interested in who rolled the right dice. When you say climatology today you might as well say quackery

God isn't loading the atmosphere with CO2. Try to stay with reality.

You thought He was? Or that He didn't know man was?

Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, will get wetter and greener. Our coasts will experience more disasters, and the American west will become more arid.

Prophesy is something you should be careful with. There are more factors possibly at work than weather trends

All of your prophets seem to have gotten it wrong, although at least some of them turned out to be on payroll of an agenda. Would you like some examples?

Why say my prophets? That makes no sense

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

So you have agendas other than your own. That is a surprise?

In your own words, "on the payroll of an agenda." Your prophet.

I see, you say 'my' prophet because he does not agree with chicken little climate fearmongering?

It's just that carbon emissions happen to be the largest factor now.

Prove it

The data...



But as you see, your guys were wrong. And the climatologists were right. See the data above. Predictions that are verified by later evidence is what science is.

No. I see both CO2 and temperatures rising. You forgot to prove one caused the other

God makes it clear what prophesy is, and it's not what you think it is.

prophesy​

verb
1. say that (a specified thing) will happen in the future

We went through a solar minimum recently. Normally, that would cause colder climate.

Support that first, then I will look at it

And as I mentioned the melting of the permafrost would release huge amounts of methane, which would accelerate warming, conceivably becoming a bigger factor than CO2.

Yes you spoke your fear. I also said God already told us the future, so relax.

That's a testable assumption...

Overall, uncertainties are large, and it is difficult to be conclusive about the time scales and magnitudes of methane feedbacks, but significant increases in methane emissions are likely, and catastrophic emissions cannot be ruled out.

That says nothing

Methane production as key to the greenhouse gas budget of thawing permafrost​

Methane production as key to the greenhouse gas budget of thawing permafrost - Nature Climate Change

An organic carbon decomposition model, calibrated with laboratory incubations, indicates a greater production rate of CO2-C equivalents from waterlogged (compared to drained) permafrost soils, when the higher global warming potential of methane is factored in.

www.nature.com

Your link was a bunch of pictures, post the relevant quotes

 

[The Barbarian]

CO2 is on the rise as are temperatures. The relation need not be causal.

We know that it is. You see, CO2 is known to absorb infrared radiation at wavelength other gases do weakly or not at all. The effect documented by James Hanson was predicted in the 1800s. It's not new science; we've known about it for a long time.

Some science prophets said the opposite.

But your "prophets" were wrong, as you've now realized. Climatologists had it right. But the deniers had it wrong.

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

In your own words, "on the payroll of an agenda." Your prophet.

I see, you say 'my' prophet because he does not agree with chicken little climate fearmongering?

I don't think getting angry and calling names is going to help you at this point. As you see, deniers have been caught on the payroll of an agenda.

We went through a solar minimum recently. Normally, that would cause colder climate.

Support that first, then I will look at it

The most recent solar cycle was relatively quiet, leading to a lot of fearmongering over an impending Grand Solar Minimum, a longer period of time spanning several cycles where even the maximums are subdued. Reports suggested global temperatures would plummet, producing a mini ice age. NASA gave this idea a sound drubbing earlier this year.

"The warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum," wrote the NASA Global Climate Change team in February.

Yes, a Solar Minimum Is Coming. No, It's Not Going to Mess Up The World

Because we are normal people living in normal times, normal things are happening.

www.sciencealert.com

Would you like me to find you a link to the math?

Your link was a bunch of pictures, post the relevant quotes

Before the linked diagrams, was the technical report. Did you not read it?

 

[truthpls]

We know that it is.

I am not a scientist in that field so I don't know. Some voices in science say that the cause is something other than the gas you posit.

You see, CO2 is known to absorb infrared radiation at wavelength other gases do weakly or not at all.

Great, so now the question is how much it absorbs exactly and what else may affect things as well. No chicken little act needed

The effect documented by James Hanson was predicted in the 1800s.

Let's get a list of all that was predicted in the 1800s. No one needs document that some gases absorb radiation. They need to document how much worldwide and that nothing else contributes to the trend.

But your "prophets" were wrong, as you've now realized. Climatologists had it right. But the deniers had it wrong.

Pretending I have prophets exposes the flatulence of your arguments.

I don't think getting angry and calling names is going to help you at this point. As you see, deniers have been caught on the payroll of an agenda.

Grants are given to reduce gases, and jobs are created and etc. That means they are getting payed.

We went through a solar minimum recently. Normally, that would cause colder climate.

Name say, six times in the last thousand years where such a solar max caused a great cooling?

The most recent solar cycle was relatively quiet, leading to a lot of fearmongering over an impending Grand Solar Minimum, a longer period of time spanning several cycles where even the maximums are subdued. Reports suggested global temperatures would plummet, producing a mini ice age. NASA gave this idea a sound drubbing earlier this year.

"The warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum," wrote the NASA Global Climate Change team in February.

Yes, a Solar Minimum Is Coming. No, It's Not Going to Mess Up The World

Because we are normal people living in normal times, normal things are happening.

www.sciencealert.com

That seems to suggest that the solar max you speak of was not such a big deal after all.

Would you like me to find you a link to the math?


Before the linked diagrams, was the technical report. Did you not read it?

You need to post in your own words whatever point you want to make. Provide links for support.
As you have learned, a lot of scientists disagree with the claims that man is the primary culprit of warming.

"Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60."

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Nobel prize winner says this

"“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

John F. Clauser

John F. Clauser Credentials Background John Francis Clauser is an experimental physicist and member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition, a group that claims that both CO2 emissions and associated global warming would be “of […]

www.desmog.com

 

[The Barbarian]

I am not a scientist in that field so I don't know.

But you presumed to tell us anyway. You don't have to be a climatologist; all you need to do, is take the time to learn about it.

Great, so now the question is how much it absorbs exactly

That was what James Hanson did. And he did it well. As you learned, he used that data to precisely predict warming thirty years in advance.

Let's get a list of all that was predicted in the 1800s.

Learn about it here:

How 19th Century Scientists Predicted Global Warming​

Today’s headlines make climate change seem like a recent discovery. But Eunice Newton Foote and others have been piecing it together for centuries.
...
The answer began to emerge in 1856, when the results of a remarkable experiment were unveiled. Eunice Newton Foote, an amateur scientist and prominent suffragette, for the first time tested the heat-trapping abilities of different gases. She took several glass cylinders, put a thermometer in the bottom, and then filled them with gas combinations ranging from very thin air to thicker air, humid air, and air with “carbonic acid,” or what we now call CO2. Foote placed the cylinders in the sun to heat up, then in the shade to cool down. When she observed how the temperatures changed, she found that the cylinder with CO2 and water vapor became hotter than regular air, and retained its heat longer in the shade. In other words, wet air and CO2 were heat-trapping gases.

When she wrote up her experiment for an 1856 issue of The American Journal of Science, Foote made an eerily prophetic observation: What happened inside the CO2 jar could also happen to our planet. “An atmosphere of that gas,” she noted, “would give to our earth a high temperature.”

How 19th Century Scientists Predicted Global Warming - JSTOR Daily

Today’s headlines make climate change seem like a recent discovery. But Eunice Newton Foote and others have been piecing it together for centuries.

daily.jstor.org

As you have learned, a lot of scientists disagree with the claims that man is the primary culprit of warming.

Most of them on a payroll with an agenda:
A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

"Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society

Meteorologists are not climatologists. Weather is not climate. But meteorologists do have a good deal of knowledge about the factors influencing climate. The society has over 13,000 members. You could only find 50 that dissented from the scientific evidence. That's about four-tenths of one percent who don't accept the evidence.

Since you consider them experts, here's what the society has to say about climate change:

Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades. Its manifestation includes the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, intensification of the heaviest precipitation over continental areas, increasing upper-ocean acidity, increasing frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes, reductions in Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and rising global sea level. The latitudinal and seasonal observations of the surface warming and the observed warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere are consistent with theoretical expectations from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The increase in global average surface temperature over the past half-century cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, e.g., responses to Earth’s orbital changes over thousands of years, or natural climate forcing such as from solar or volcanic variability.

Climate Change

(Adopted by the AMS Council on 15 April 2019)

www.ametsoc.org

 

[truthpls]

But you presumed to tell us anyway. You don't have to be a climatologist; all you need to do, is take the time to learn about it.

I can read, and all can see there is division in the science ranks on the issue, despite the desire of some to push the agenda

That was what James Hanson did. And he did it well. As you learned, he used that data to precisely predict warming thirty years in advance.

He based a future trend on something was was going to rise also. Namely the gases man makes. The trick is to prove nothing else contributed or was even a bigger factor.

The answer began to emerge in 1856, when the results of a remarkable experiment were unveiled. Eunice Newton Foote, an amateur scientist and prominent suffragette, for the first time tested the heat-trapping abilities of different gases.

This is news? Yes heat can get trapped. The issue is on planet earth what else may also cause heat or a warming cycle/trend etc. Not whether we can trap heat with gas in a lab.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

So people you want to put out of business also commissioned studies. Wow. Big surprise. I guess they should just die quietly while people with an agenda to kill their business sponsor studies?? Nice. Then we can have only businesses/people you like make a living.

Meteorologists are not climatologists. Weather is not climate. But meteorologists do have a good deal of knowledge about the factors influencing climate. The society has over 13,000 members. You could only find 50 that dissented from the scientific evidence. That's about four-tenths of one percent who don't accept the evidence.

The point is that a plethora of scientists disagree with the cult of climate fearmongering and 'science'

Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for US

pitchstonewaters.com

Since you consider them experts, here's what the society has to say about climate change:

"
The mainstream media peddle the claim that 97% of (climate) scientists be-
lieve in man-made Global-Warming and that, therefore, there is no debate
to be had on the subject. This is false and irrelevant. To get the 97% figure,
they basically counted people who had mentioned Climate-Change in an ab-
stract or heading of a scientific paper. Dr Legates* has reviewed the work
and shows that, in fact, only 0.3% of the papers claim that ‘man had caused
most post-1950 warming’. Nonetheless, science isn’t about consensus, it is
about facts"

https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf

The amount of dissenting voices in science is hilarious! You cannot deny it. Just like the predictions that said cooling or warmer or neutral. Obviously when you prophesy opposite things, some will be right and some wrong. The climate change agenda is clearly a godless farce.
Man should worry what will happen to him soon, not the planet. The planet won't be going to hell. Many people will. That is what man should fear.

 

[The Barbarian]

I can read, and all can see there is division in the science ranks on the issue,

In the case of the meteorologists you touted as an example, less then four-tenths of one percent of their membership. The association you cited as an example has an official statement endorsing man-caused global warming.

That was what James Hanson did. And he did it well. As you learned, he used that data to precisely predict warming thirty years in advance.

He based a future trend on something was was going to rise also. Namely the gases man makes.

And it worked so well, that it was precisely right. He confirmed what scientists had predicted long ago, when they realized the warming potential for carbon dioxide.

But it's true that some scientists have a payrolled agenda:
A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

So people you want to put out of business also commissioned studies.

Nope. They are welcome to pay people to support whatever agenda they like. But rational people notice, and make conclusions.

Meteorologists are not climatologists. Weather is not climate. But meteorologists do have a good deal of knowledge about the factors influencing climate. The society has over 13,000 members. You could only find 50 that dissented from the scientific evidence. That's about four-tenths of one percent who don't accept the evidence.

The point is that a plethora of scientists disagree

If a "plethora" is less than four-tenths of one percent of them. And two other scientists from Princeton; one of them is even a climate scientist! You seem to be making my points for me.

The amount of dissenting voices in science is hilarious!

I had to chuckle at your "plethora" of four-tenths of one percent. Or almost that much.

The climate change agenda is clearly a godless farce.

I thought you said God was responsible. Now you say that he's not involved with it. Make up your mind.

 

[truthpls]

In the case of the meteorologists you touted as an example, less then four-tenths of one percent of their membership. The association you cited as an example has an official statement endorsing man-caused global warming.

I posted lots of links saying that many in the science community believe otherwise otherwise. example
"
The mainstream media peddle the claim that 97% of (climate) scientists be-
lieve in man-made Global-Warming and that, therefore, there is no debate
to be had on the subject. This is false and irrelevant. To get the 97% figure,
they basically counted people who had mentioned Climate-Change in an ab-
stract or heading of a scientific paper. Dr Legates* has reviewed the work
and shows that, in fact, only 0.3% of the papers claim that ‘man had caused
most post-1950 warming’. Nonetheless, science isn’t about consensus, it is
about facts"

https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf
Regardless of what organization claims what, there is differences of opinion on the matter of climate changes.

And it worked so well,

Grabbing one of the prophets out of the pile who happened to be close (for whatever actual reason) is not 'working well'. It is cherry picking why denying the rest of the false nonsense.

Nope. They are welcome to pay people to support whatever agenda they like. But rational people notice, and make conclusions.

Especially when people find out what was behind the curtain after all, such as the climate agenda

If a "plethora" is less than four-tenths of one percent of them. And two other scientists from Princeton; one of them is even a climate scientist! You seem to be making my points for me.

Yet some claim otherwise as you learned.
"They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60"

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Regardless of numbers, there is stark disagreement. Why would any rational person trust anything they say??

I thought you said God was responsible. Now you say that he's not involved with it. Make up your mind.

God changes weather and watches over the climate. He has four angels in charge of that sort of thing in fact. Soon they will order the wind to cease and etc, completely altering the climate. The last thing you or anyone needs to worry about is what man does. Just do the best you can, fear God, and trust God, and believe Him over fearmongering liars.

 

[The Barbarian]

I posted lots of links saying that many in the science community believe otherwise otherwise.

Your link to the very organization you touted as representing the scientific community shows less than four-tenths of one percent of them disagree with position statement they posted:
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades. Its manifestation includes the warming of the atmosphere and oceans, intensification of the heaviest precipitation over continental areas, increasing upper-ocean acidity, increasing frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes, reductions in Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and rising global sea level. The latitudinal and seasonal observations of the surface warming and the observed warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere are consistent with theoretical expectations from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The increase in global average surface temperature over the past half-century cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, e.g., responses to Earth’s orbital changes over thousands of years, or natural climate forcing such as from solar or volcanic variability."

You seem to be making my points for me. Or are you now telling me you no longer want to use them as representative of scientist opinion?

Grabbing one of the prophets out of the pile who happened to be close (for whatever actual reason)

He took a look at factors that would increase atmospheric warming. Only one of them seemed to fit the existing data. So he predicted what the future would be, using only carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. And he got it precisely right, validating predictions of scientists as far back as the 1800s. Theories that make successful predictions are considered to be valid. Those that don't, such as those made by your prophets, are not accepted. Tough game, but nothing humans can do, works better for understanding how the world works.

Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60

The organization you touted has 13,000 members in the U.S. Only 50 of them dissented from the conclusion of that organization, supporting anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of warming.

Also in 2021, a team led by Mark Lynas had found 80,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020, and chose to analyse a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The actual paper:

ShieldSquare Error

iopscience.iop.org

Your prophets just had it wrong. And by this century, there was no longer any debate. The vast majority of climatologists knew that warming is primarily the function of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.