Will these people lose any reputation if the possible grand solar minimum happens?
EDIT:
Also:
"The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change announced last week that 157 million more people were exposed to heatwave events in 2017, compared with 2000."
As far as I can tell no domain expert thinks that is an actual issue. You are at this point wondering if a magnetic activity event MIGHT occur in the future that then MIGHT have some indirect effect on clouds that then might impact global warming substantively.
We might also get a supervolcano eruption which would cool things for a while!
Really frustrating that this is still the argument presented by skeptics. The Suspicious Observers community has been debunking the solar radiance theory for years. Looks like the next major disruption in science is coming concerning whether the sun is gaseous or not.
Some people have this weird idea that anthropogenic global warming is just a bunch of data simulation that will crumble like a house of cards if only we could find the right reason for why the temperatures are changing...
Every steps of how mankind's activity leads to increased CO2 level to increased infrared absorption to increased temperature is very well understood. If for some reason science discovers yet another source of global warming, that won't be what you fancy it would be. It won't disprove AGW or absolve us of our responsibility. Instead, it will be an "Oh shit, we are truly fucked" moment.
I have a hard time understanding why some people are attracted so much to this possibility.
...Heh, who am I kidding. I know perfectly well why.
>"~20% more people, ~300% more people exposed to heatwaves."
One interpretation: 90% of people born in the last 20 years or so are not being exposed to an increased number of heatwaves.
They only tell us an increase of 157 million people since 2000, not sure what the baseline is and don't feel like signing up for the lancet article. If you want to check it please share the baseline percentage of people? I just know its a rabbit hole... I'd start asking stuff like: is this people exposed at least once in their life to a heatwave, what is the definition of heatwave and how has the definition changed, in general how is this measured?
>"This change is clearly not due to population growth."
This is wild speculation, it all depends where the population growth has occurred.
Given the corresponding population increase of 1.5 billion over the study period, most of that in areas subject to heatwaves... is that figure even noteworthy?
Looking at the comments here so far, it is, as ever, the never-ending debate as to whether climate change is real or not.
I look at this really straightforwardly:
You discover a lump on your skin. It looks like cancer. Do you go to a doctor, or do you sit at home assuming it’ll all be fine?
What is so wrong with seeking to mitigate risk? Would you sooner wait until it’s metastatic, and probably going to kill you, or have a potentially pointless surgery but definitely exclude the possibility of a painful death?
That analogy doesn't speak to me. It brushes over a lot of complexity, infuses value judgments and trivialises important issues.
1) Global warming is not really comparable to cancer. Cancer is a healthy system getting disrupted and ending, global warming is simply a system changing. The type of change threatened by AGW is very scary and expensive, but the future is going to involve radical change anyway. Deciding what the change is likely to entail and how many resources to set aside for dealing with it is an important part of the debate.
2) It appears you are invoking a variant of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is fundamentally unsound. It ignores the fact that we make decisions in a finite world, and some risks are too small to devote attention to (because there are an effectively infinite number of trivial risks that we need trivial effort to deal with, resulting in an infinite demand for finite resources). Resources are limited, if we did believe that climate change was 'not real', then devoting anything to motigating it would be unacceptable.
Where did I say anything close to "climate change is not real"?
My very first sentence in this thread is regarding "the possible grand solar minimum", an example of a phenomenon that would (supposedly) lead to climate change.
Ok. So you’re arguing the climate is cooling, not warming.
You know what, I don’t believe you’re a real person - I think you’re a disinformation sock puppet. I have no evidence for this, but by your measure the onus is on you to disprove this.
Amazing how after decades of deterioation broadly along the lines predicted, people still have time to talk of climate change like it is a political conspiracy.
The argument here is this: scientists have each identified, in isolation, various factors that work opposite global warming, and have determined, in isolation, that these factors, considered individually, cannot balance out global warming. In video 3, the author identifies natural phenomena that he says climate models have failed to factor in, such that the effect is that they far too heavily weigh the impact of humans on the climate.
Unfortunately, the video author makes a failure common to many climate change skeptics. First, the author failed to make a positive claim with justification that yes, indeed, the cooling phenomena identified in isolation when considered holistically counteracts warming. Next, he fails to propose a model that provides a cause of the extraordinary current increasing trend.
Considering the lack of a positive model, I would still have to accept the IPCC findings as the most plausible model.
EDIT:
Also: "The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change announced last week that 157 million more people were exposed to heatwave events in 2017, compared with 2000."
There are about 1.5 billion more people in 2017 vs 2000, only 10% being exposed to heat waves seems like a good thing. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populati...