Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 10:31pm:


Excellent idea Bobby   

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:



So if true,  it is ok to pay for articles that promote climate change but not the other way around?

That really is hypocritical isn't it?

" We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks."

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspec...

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:27pm:



Didn't answer the question HYPOCRITE.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:27pm:



There is far more evidence for smoking causing cancer than there is for AGW.

Show us the evidence; not climate models but evidence.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:



Try googling Rockefeller funding climate science or similar.
Try googling Rockefeller funding for Greenpeace.

Just a couple of hits.
https://theartofthehierophant.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/rockefeller-part-1-controlling-the-game/comment-page-1/
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/08/big-green-hypocrites/

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:



The truth is you haven't read the report so you don't know.

You can read it at this link -
http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.p...

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:



Big noting yourself? I don't know.

So let's have a look at that Abstract.

"The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat waves assessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes. "

Maybe natural variability played the whole role?

Heat waves - "The Australian summer of 2012/13 was the warmest since records began in 1910 (Bureau of Meteorology 2013a). "

Actually records go back further than 1880. Back then, like now, there were large areas of the continent with no weather stations. So much for measuring heatwaves in Australia.

California Droughts - "The  2013  event  in  historical  context.  The 12-month precipitation and GPH anomalies are both unprecedented in the observational record (Fig. 2.1a,e). "

Figure 2.1c only goes back to about 1900. California has longer records than that.

Then of course we have "BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur."

www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/science/severe-ancient-droughts-a-warning-to-californ...

Published 1994.

Heavy rain events - "Nonetheless, the 2013 heavy rainfall event was large in spatial scale. Weather predictability of the event per se is not addressed herein (see Hamill 2014), but rather how climate change may have affected the relative likelihood of heavy precipitation in this large region. For this purpose, the modeled statistics of  heavy  five-day  rainfall  of  the recent 30-year period (1983–2012) are compared to that of the last 30 years of the 19th century."

Right climate models again.

Storms - " While these anomalies were significantly less than those associated with other blizzards in the region, they were comparable to 24 major snowstorms in Grumm and Hart (2001). These moderately strong anomalies suggest the storm system was intense, regardless of season, but not unprecedented in terms of 500-hPa heights."

Oh, NOT unprecedented.

Perhaps you did read it, just didn't understand it.

Quote:


I agree with the NOAA on this one.
No one single weather event can either prove or disprove global warming.
Global warming is about long term trends and probabilities that can only be seen over decades. This isn't "sexy" enough for the media though.

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 11:08pm:


Quote:


How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear

Less clear, not proven wrong.

indicating that natural variability

likely

played a much larger role in these extremes

Or maybe the natural variations were impacted by climate change and maybe it had a substantial impact. Where they talk about water currents there is no indication of how much is normal and what percentage may be influenced by change for instance, we know the water is warmer.

Also where they talk about  extreme ridging events which block storms moving into the California region from the sea. At one point they point out that the recent events have been unusually prolonged and much higher than in the past. In a separate section they associate that hight with the duration and also the hight is associated with reduced sea ice. That is that reduced sea ice in the north is thought to drive a higher ridge which lasts longer.

This is natural variability ? But the amount of sea ICE is linked to global warming so maybe not as natural as first thought.

Not sure why the report didn't link those two assessments made in the same report ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:



Saying people should read the report is NOT the same as having read the report.

You could of course have given a link to the report. That would show at least you knew where it was. it still wouldn't have shown you had read the report.