4 ms·

NASA has a great page with links at the bottom for the papers that specifically find evidence of anthropogenic climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

NASA has a great page with links at the bottom for the papers that specifically find evidence of anthropogenic climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but the science of climate change really isn't a debate. There is widespread consensus among experts that the evidence supports the general idea of anthropogenic climate change.

oldandtired 9y ago
Sorry, who are you including in the term "experts"? Having had interaction with climate scientists over the last two decades, I have come to the point of expecting the majority of them to toe the PC line and participate in the "dogma" of anthropogenic climate change. They have been unwilling to discuss the energy requirements for their scenarios. There are many scientists (including some climate scientists) who have pointed out the inconsistencies that are in the standard "dogma". Many have come out with a similar view. That view being that we don't know and we should be doing much more research in the question. I am of the same viewpoint, with the added position that I consider most of the climate change we see as mostly natural. One specific example is the frequency of high impact cyclones and anti-cyclones being experienced in the last few years. Much ado has been said by climate scientists in claiming that this is unprecedented. If you go back and look at records from the mid 1800's to the early 1900's, one finds quite a bit of information about similar size events taking place during that period of time. Since it didn't affect major populations (as they didn't exist in those areas at that time), little has been reported in the news of that time. Looking at those records, one gets the impression that they may have been even more destructive that those of the last few years. Just because those who believe in anthropogenic climate change as the major effects don't have any debate amongst themselves, it doesn't mean that others who look at the situation logically can't debate the conclusion reached in the "dogma". I have challenged various supporters of the anthropogenic climate change viewpoint to to the energy requirements calculations for the disaster scenarios. Nary a one them has taken up the challenge. It's not hard to do. Only one person has even responded in a logical and thoughtful and found a couple of papers that he thought supported his view. He was a pleasure to talk with, even though we disagree on what those papers showed. The point I am making is that there are many (scientists, engineers, programmers) who see major discrepancies in the anthropogenic climate change viewpoint and are pointing out the simple fact that we do not know to what extent (how little or how large) any anthropogenic causes are effected climate. I have yet to see any of the computer code used in the climate models released for general public review. Some may have been but I have not yet seen any such event. Until that is done and competent programmers can analyse the code and other scientists can analyse the code assumptions, we really have to take a sceptical view of any of the climate scientists claims. I have stated before that if climate scientists can show a reasonable and reasoned discussion on the energy requirements for their scenarios that actually match what we see, I am willing to give them the argument. They haven't so I won't. Climate change is real and it is ongoing. Whether or not there are any significant anthropogenic causes that we can mitigate is unknown at this time. Getting your knickers in a twist over this is a futile and unproductive effort. Man is greedy and many of the problems experienced in recent years due to the major weather events has been due to man's greed ignoring the historical evidence about not building in specific areas and not building to high enough standards. I have seen building approvals for areas that were flood prone when I was a child (as it flooded there every year) but due to 20 or more years of drought, those events faded from memory and greed allowed building to occur. When I was a child, there were specific cyclone standards in place for building. You were considered a fool to not build to those standards then and in some circumstances, it was a requirement to build to those standards. When the drought had been in play for a decade or so, people no longer considered it appropriate to build to those standards, so house frames were constructed with lower grade softwoods (like pine) instead of the higher grade hardwoods. A last note, many years ago, NASA published an interesting set of observations about surface temperature variations amongst the planets in our solar system and that (at that time) the changes were all in the same direction. As one comedic observer remarked, humans are pretty good at causing climate change, we even cause it on other planets. [EDIT corrected spelling mistake]

oldandtired 9y ago

Sorry, who are you including in the term "experts"? Having had interaction with climate scientists over the last two decades, I have come to the point of expecting the majority of them to toe the PC line and participate in the "dogma" of anthropogenic climate change. They have been unwilling to discuss the energy requirements for their scenarios. There are many scientists (including some climate scientists) who have pointed out the inconsistencies that are in the standard "dogma". Many have come out with a similar view. That view being that we don't know and we should be doing much more research in the question. I am of the same viewpoint, with the added position that I consider most of the climate change we see as mostly natural. One specific example is the frequency of high impact cyclones and anti-cyclones being experienced in the last few years. Much ado has been said by climate scientists in claiming that this is unprecedented. If you go back and look at records from the mid 1800's to the early 1900's, one finds quite a bit of information about similar size events taking place during that period of time. Since it didn't affect major populations (as they didn't exist in those areas at that time), little has been reported in the news of that time. Looking at those records, one gets the impression that they may have been even more destructive that those of the last few years. Just because those who believe in anthropogenic climate change as the major effects don't have any debate amongst themselves, it doesn't mean that others who look at the situation logically can't debate the conclusion reached in the "dogma". I have challenged various supporters of the anthropogenic climate change viewpoint to to the energy requirements calculations for the disaster scenarios. Nary a one them has taken up the challenge. It's not hard to do. Only one person has even responded in a logical and thoughtful and found a couple of papers that he thought supported his view. He was a pleasure to talk with, even though we disagree on what those papers showed. The point I am making is that there are many (scientists, engineers, programmers) who see major discrepancies in the anthropogenic climate change viewpoint and are pointing out the simple fact that we do not know to what extent (how little or how large) any anthropogenic causes are effected climate. I have yet to see any of the computer code used in the climate models released for general public review. Some may have been but I have not yet seen any such event. Until that is done and competent programmers can analyse the code and other scientists can analyse the code assumptions, we really have to take a sceptical view of any of the climate scientists claims. I have stated before that if climate scientists can show a reasonable and reasoned discussion on the energy requirements for their scenarios that actually match what we see, I am willing to give them the argument. They haven't so I won't. Climate change is real and it is ongoing. Whether or not there are any significant anthropogenic causes that we can mitigate is unknown at this time. Getting your knickers in a twist over this is a futile and unproductive effort. Man is greedy and many of the problems experienced in recent years due to the major weather events has been due to man's greed ignoring the historical evidence about not building in specific areas and not building to high enough standards. I have seen building approvals for areas that were flood prone when I was a child (as it flooded there every year) but due to 20 or more years of drought, those events faded from memory and greed allowed building to occur. When I was a child, there were specific cyclone standards in place for building. You were considered a fool to not build to those standards then and in some circumstances, it was a requirement to build to those standards. When the drought had been in play for a decade or so, people no longer considered it appropriate to build to those standards, so house frames were constructed with lower grade softwoods (like pine) instead of the higher grade hardwoods. A last note, many years ago, NASA published an interesting set of observations about surface temperature variations amongst the planets in our solar system and that (at that time) the changes were all in the same direction. As one comedic observer remarked, humans are pretty good at causing climate change, we even cause it on other planets. [EDIT corrected spelling mistake]