The next guy on that list is a meteorologist. Is he ok with you? "Lennart Bengtsson (born 5 July 1935) is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. [1] He was head of research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He became a recipient of the Milutin Milankovic Medal in 1996.[2] He is now a senior research fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading. In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research[3] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st International Meteorological Organization Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.[4] In 2009 he was made an honorary fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in recognition of his contribution to meteorology." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Bengtsson
Yes, his background seems much more relevant. I still want to know why you thought a botanist's opinions were relevant?
Well, .let's see. How about this? " What can plants reveal about global climate change? Date: July 26, 2013 Source: American Journal of Botany Summary: While the media continues to present climate change as a controversial issue, many scientists are working hard to gather data, collaborate across disciplines, and use experimental and modeling techniques to track how organisms and ecosystems are responding to the current changes in our Earth's global environment. What role do plants play in helping to regulate climate change and how will they fare in future times? Share: American Journal of Botany. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130726112209.htm
That doesn't really help at all. The first botanist was listed under "They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling." What can plants tell us about the inadequacies of current global climate modelling?
[/QUOTE] Craig, Keith, & Sherwood Idso, paid by Peabody Coal & Western Fuels Ass.(abbreviation tells more than the full spelling). Other than paid AGW deniers, they're mixed in some other shenanigans, too. Willy Soon paid $1 million, beginning with grant funding by various oil concerns. Robert Balling co-published The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming with fellow climate change skeptic Patrick J. Michaels. The book was published by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that has collectively received over $13 Million from Koch foundations and $125,200 from ExxonMobil. Indur Goklany has received $1,000 per month from the Heartland Institute, an organization at the forefront of climate change denial..... Fred Singer founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990. While engaged in activities denying the existence of man-made global warming, SEPP has received funding from......Shell, Uniroyal and ARCO as well as $20,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. ////// This is old stuff & your lists of fake "sigh-ants" researchers is fodder for pressy-dent "don'T rump", who destroys proper science with each exhaled breath he takes.
We each don't get to decide for ourselves - well, you CAN - but our OPINION of the data is meaningless. Watch the video, please. The vast majority of scientists agree that we humans are changing the climate. We are as sure of this, as we are that smoking causes cancer. Does your opinion of that change the science?
Many of the paid AGW denier "sigh-ants" believers, began their "doubting ways" by being paid by cigarette companies to pitch "no cigarette/cancer" connections.
Smoking & drinking destroyed much of my family. Dad & mom died early due to smoking & drinking. My sister & brother, broke away from drinking...... but neither could stop smoking & died early. My smoking & drinking uncle died early. Smoking & drinking cousins died early.
My parents: did not smoke did not drink did not cuss Both were of normal weight and went to church 1 or 2 times per week Both died early due to natural causes. Carcus does not smoke Carcus occasionally drinks too much Carcus works out like a mofo (8 to 12 hours per week) and cusses like a gawdam sailor (but not as much as his girlfriend), Carcus never goes to church Awaiting results ..... ymmv
Oh yeah , yer going straight to hell , lol. I really enjoy working out , too. Don't drink anymore. As a card-carrying agnostic , most religions turn me off. But I sometimes will go to a non-denominational church if I need to hear a positive message. Or pick up women.
Since Arctic sea ice no longer exists at lower latitudes (during all months), the remaining Arctic sea ice existence occurs at farther north latitudes. Of course, over the remaining Arctic sea ice, the sun's elevation above the horizon, averages lower in the sky. It takes an AGW denier to concentrate on thickness, & a belief in a returning ice age.
Average pre-industrial global atmospheric methane ppb were ~ 700. Global methane ppb are presently pitching way above the strike zone, at 1850+. Arctic spot methane readings have been above 2000ppb, & rare readings have exceeded 3000ppb. This recent article shows that Barrow, Alaska has been above 2000ppb for 4 months!! https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/17/the-rumbling-methane-enigma/ If any AGW denier considers this a spot reading, they have a terribly dull set of instruments. //////// From the article: Ira Leifer, (is) a scientist who studies the shallow seas of the Arctic and works with NASA on methane data. Leifer discovered wicked SOS signals coming from a 620 square mile area of the Barents Sea jam-packed with methane bubbles at the rate of 60 million plumes, which is almost impossible to fathom as the normal background rate should be thousands, not 60 million. (Of much concern to CleanMPG): “In 2010, 18 percent of all car sales in the world were SUVs. In 2018, more than 40% of all cars sold in the world are SUVs,” Ibid. The SUV fad is contagious and spreading like wildfire throughout the world marketplace. The problem: Sport-utility vehicles (gas guzzlers) aka: SUVs are the second-biggest contributor of growth of CO2 emissions in the world. Even worse yet, the IEA report states: “If SUV demand continues at current rates, they will add nearly two million (2,000,000) barrels to global daily oil demand by 2040, offsetting the savings from nearly 150 million electric cars,” Ibid. No wonder major producers intend to increase oil production by 120%. The demand is there. Ouch! That adds considerably more certainty and a much higher probability to the “Big Burp Event.” We just don’t know the exact timing, yet. Postscript: “First, the probability of this pulse happening is high, at least 50 percent according to the analysis of sediment composition by those best placed to know what is going on, Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov. Moreover, if it happens, the detrimental effects are gigantic… the risk of an Arctic seabed methane pulse is one of the greatest immediate risks facing the human race…
It is thought that if methane atmospheric ppb increases to 6000 ppb, then methane warming could equal the warming of CO2. With "global methane burp", increases well BEYOND 5-6000ppb are entirely possible.
Greenland lost 600 billion tons of ice during the heat of summer 2019. NASA studies from 2002 to 2019 indicate that 4,550 BILLION TONS of ice have been lost from Greenland. https://www.iflscience.com/environment/greenland-lost-around-600-billion-tons-of-ice-last-summer/ Therefore, this 17 year, massive Greenland ice "escape melt" is the equivalent of a completely melted ice cube..... here it comes(or melts)......that originally was 10.2 MILES WIDE BY 10.2 MILES LONG BY 53,900 FEET HIGH.
Now two+ years later, Greenland ice loss continues powerfully, the loss easily understood as related to an ice cube…..10.96 MILES WIDE BY 10.96 MILES LONG BY 57,869 FEET HIGH.
