18 thoughts on “Scientists on Abrupt Climate Change

  1. First speaker I see, RICHARD 'BIG DICK' ALLEY doesn't know that CO2 is a TRACE GAS that makes up less than 1% OF THE EARTH'S atmosphere. Anyone that thinks that CO2 is dangerous, doesn't know that PLANTS NEED CO2!
    IT IS THE SUN, STUPID! Not man, the sun is controloing our climate – not Man. I used to think that CO2 had something to do with changing our climate to AN ICE AGE, not the fraudulent global warming.
    We are already in the next Ice Age and CO2 is FOlLOWING THE climate change, not leading it.; Please FUCKING PAY ATTENTION TO REALITY!

  2. The Pleistocene rate-of-change for CO2 averaged 1-ppm/1000-yrs, big jump up end of the last ice-age 1-ppm/180-yrs, last year we set a record 3.05-ppm, one year.

    We're 5-times outside "natural variation", the max for the epoch was 305±5-ppm during the 800k-yr ice-core record, variation was 180-280ppm, 305-280 = 25, 25÷280 = 9%, at 405-ppm 125÷280 = 45%.

    At 405-ppm we jumped CO2 too fast and that's acidifying the oceans 10-times faster than an extinction event to put frosting on the burnt carbon cake.

    The bonus at 405-ppm is sea-level goes up 25m/82ft for sure, during the Pliocene it went as high as 60m/200ft at the same CO2 levels and we're biz-as-usual shootin' for 600-ppm or bust.

    For 2015 we did 37-Gigatons CO2-eqv, frozen it's 37 cubic-kilometers of gas, 25% of it stays for over 10,000-years in the atmosphere, Catch-22 on CO2.

    The idea to sequester that much CO2 a year will shatter strata to earthquakes along with poisoning by the CO2 from touching groundwater or aquifers.

    Dumped into the sea it causes a benthic extinction.

    That's rather immature and delusional geophysically speaking, it's the same problem with nuclear waste, eh?

    End the Steam-Age for electrons, 80% of grid power is for thermal end uses so ending the grid will take less than 5-years, if it was a war maybe 2-months.

  3. These things are best case. I hope to live in a world like this. This is good news. Climate change is really scary. Never venture too deep into the abyss of climate change. It gives me shivers 

  4.  So much bullshit gets slung by the paid professionals in the Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming that one needs supersized muck boots to wade through it.  Not to be outdone by the pros there are legions of followers who declare their faith, chant their catechisms and demand their pound of flesh from any who would truck with apostasy.  What a revolting scourge this is, what a stain on the reputation of Science and Western Civilization that a cesspool dweller like Michael Mann is seen as a shining light of Enlightenment.  Give me a f'ing break.  And to give us all a break from the nausea created by these scientific hacks I give you the esteemed Matt Ridley.

    "As somebody who has championed science all his career, carrying a lot of water for the profession against its critics on many issues, I am losing faith. Recent examples of bias and corruption in science are bad enough. What's worse is the reluctance of scientific leaders to criticize the bad apples. Science as a philosophy is in good health; science as an institution increasingly stinks.

    The Nuffield Council on Bioethics published a report last week that found evidence of scientists increasingly "employing less rigorous research methods" in response to funding pressures. A 2009 survey found that almost 2 per cent of scientists admitting that they have fabricated results; 14 per cent say that their colleagues have done so."

    "Last week, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a supposedly scientific body, issued a press release stating that this is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures. Yet this predicted record would be only one hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two hundredths of a degree above 2005 — with an error range of one tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that.

    In any case, the year is not over, so why the announcement now? Oh yes, there's a political climate summit in Lima this week. The scientists of WMO allowed themselves to be used politically. Not that they were reluctant.  To squeeze and cajole the data until they just crossed the line, the WMO “reanalysed” a merger of five data sets. Maybe that was legitimate but, given how the institutions that gather temperature data have twice this year been caught red-handed making poorly justified adjustments to “homogenize” and “in-fill” thermometer records in such a way as to cool down old records and warm up new ones, I have my doubts."

    "When a similar scandal blew up in 2009 over the hiding of inconvenient data that appeared to discredit the validity of proxies for past global temperatures based on tree rings (part of "Climategate"), the scientific establishment closed ranks and tried to pretend it did not matter. Last week a further installment of that story came to light, showing that yet more inconvenient data (which discredit bristlecone pine tree rings as temperature proxies) had emerged.

    The overwhelming majority of scientists do excellent, objective work, following the evidence wherever it leads. Science remains (in my view) our most treasured cultural achievement, bar none. Most of its astonishing insights into life, the universe and everything are beyond reproach and beyond compare. All the more reason to be less tolerant of those who let their motivated reasoning distort data or the presentation of data. It's hard for champions of science like me to make our case against creationists, homeopaths and other merchants of mysticism if some of those within science also practice pseudo-science."

    Truly despicable behavior from PhD's in Official Science.  That is, those responsible for communications and choosing journal articles, those who are appointed heads of organizations and those who interface with government.

  5. AGW is not a fact, it is a theory and not even a scientific theory.  It is an opinion.

    Climate models are not facts, they are assumptions built on assumptions.

    Compared to actual observations, otherwise known as empirical data, the model assumptions are/were wrong therefore, the assumptions they were built on  are/were wrong.

    The Jig is up.

    Courage is needed to divert our attention and resources to the clear and present problems we do have and not the ones we obviously do not have.

  6. 50 years from now, the scientists will be saying, "We told you this would happen. No one listened. You only have yourselves to blame."

  7. Some constructive criticism:

    I'm not really sure if having all the edits and the style of changing speakers ever few seconds makes for an effective message.  I find it just makes me suspicious that the quotes might have been cherry picked or otherwise taken out of context.  (Wonder where I learned that from…)  

    What do other people think?

    I'd love to see the interviews in full.  Are the available anywhere?

  8. I also find myself smiling when I describe the same things to friends. Over the decades of watching things unfold I've come to accept what's happening, and I still see no political movement to do anything about where we're going – and I don't expect it. This particular video didn't mention the changes to the food production, the effects from migrating insects, displacements, or other items that I'm sure were in the minds of the presenters.

Leave a Reply