Dramatic warming projected in world's major cities by 2050

It's going to be fun to read posts arguing with scientists. Let the games begin!

The conspiracy theorists will be along shortly to put these climate scientists in their place.

Yup, computer modeling of climate is a pseudoscience, but I guess those charlatans have to make a living.

It's going to be fun to read posts arguing with scientists. 

Some posters might counter with findings pushed by the global oil and gas industries' scientists, which will then be echoed by their paid social media trolls.

And also echoed perhaps by those heavily invested in big oil and gas and other corporate polluters.

And by those who either don't have children or who don't care about the world their children will grow up in. (They got it while they could - screw everyone else.)

And perhaps those who don't live in coastal areas where the seas continue to rise.

And by those living in nations dependent on oil and gas, especially those run by authoritarian regimes.

And by those heavily invested in big war industries profiting by providing weapons in the global wars for control of oil and gas.

Yup, computer modeling of climate is a pseudoscience, but I guess those charlatans have to make a living.

That only took 16 minutes.

A recent study concludes that planting billions of trees is cheaper and more effective than any other technique studied for combating climate change:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

Time to move north and invest in a small plot in the countryside. Better move there before it gets crowded.

Humans relying only on computer models in an attempt to control Mother Nature. Good luck with that.

Yup, computer modeling of climate is a pseudoscience, but I guess those charlatans have to make a living.

LOL. Computers, invented by scientists are not scientific. LOL. What to rely on, then - religion? Random climate change deniers on the internet?

Climate changes naturally-hot to cold and cold to hot.

Living in hot big cities like London or New York without air con will (for the poor) become intolerable.

However, planting trees in and around cities, capping city populations, greening roofs, use of reflective paint are just some measures to limit the effects.

Personally, I am all for bringing the siesta to the world!

Dramatic warming projected in world's major cities by 2050 -- headline

But, but, but . . . ex-bartender/member of the U.S. Congress/renowned climate change authority AOC said everyone will be dead in less than 12 years. Forget 2050; leftists need to party like it's 2031.

It's going to be fun to read posts arguing with scientists. Let the games begin!

... and let's ignore the scientists who are predicting global cooling...

Anyway, I am sure the ETH Zurich scientists will be expecting more funding.

It's going to be fun to read posts arguing with scientists. Let the games begin!

You mean scientists like these ... ?

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

Robert E. Davis, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.

Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society

Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).

Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.

Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.

Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).

Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.

Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.

William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.

Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.

Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.

There are many other scientists on the list with similar credentials but it's difficult to find them in the corporate media because their views differ from the official narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Then there is this petition listing scientists who question the "consensus" with the following statement...

[...] There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I don't see any reason to doubt the above scientists but am skeptical of scientists who rely on computer models predicting a dire future 'unless we act now'.

We’re pretty close to a full house on the conspiracy theorists here. Throw in a story about moon landings and the place will be rocking.

Remember the former U.S. politician who reinvented himself into becoming the guru of all things climate doom-and-gloom, Al Gore, who won a Grammy, an Emmy and an Oscar for his Armageddon movie (sorry, don't remember its title), said the world's polar ice caps would all be melted by 2015? And the global climate change Chicken Little cultists believed him without question.

Suckers.

Humans relying only on computer models in an attempt to control Mother Nature. Good luck with that.

Yeah, because it's not like humans have ever been able to replicate anything from real life digitally.

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

Started laughing at the latest scaremongering by the Global warming cult, everything that "cultists" have predicted in the past have not happened in reality, in fact some of those "cultists" actual purchased houses near the beach obviously they wanted to get a front row seat of those rising seas.

Relax everybody Carbon Dioxide makes up only 0.04percent of the atmosphere that 400 parts per million, man apparently makes about 12 parts per million - there's no way you're going to get me to believe something so small is going to cause a serious problem.

Due to the high amounts of concrete and asphalt used in cities they retain heat, cities with a lot of trees and plants have a lower temperature thanks to those trees than cities without a lot of vegetation.

Don't get to carried away with believing those cultist scientists because for every one that says Climate change is real you can find another that tells you its fake.

Started laughing at the latest scaremongering by the Global warming cult, everything that "cultists" have predicted in the past have not happened in reality, in fact some of those "cultists" actual purchased houses near the beach obviously they wanted to get a front row seat of those rising seas.

Hmm, laughing because you believe an American political ideology over scientists who have dedicated their lives to the issue, and say something different than an American political party.

Makes sense bro.

Don't get to carried away with believing those cultist scientists because for every one that says Climate change is real you can find another that tells you its fake.

Nope. That would suggest a 50/50 split on the issue among climate scientists.

It’s not near that. It’s actually very far from that. In fact, it’s nothing like that whatsoever.

The political cultists who swallow political packages from the shelf whole are dangerous.

Conspiracy theorists ( they swallow products whole too ) like faked moon landing headbangers, anti-vaccine nutters, building 7 crackpots, trash birthers or those who think the whole climate thing was concocted by the Chinese, are a real problem and very predictable people.

If these people were confined to message boards, it could be seen as entertaining, but some of these clowns are in political office. This is terrifying.

Did you think this sentence makes sense? -- comment

buh bye, troll

Mind you, when the effects of climate change start to affect those in their lofty ivory towers, it will be a different story. It's happening right now, but that's ok because, y'know, it's just developing nations and poor people.

LOL. Computers, invented by scientists are not scientific. LOL. What to rely on, then - religion? Random climate change deniers on the internet?

You talking about the same computers that Al Gore used to predict the Arctic ice cap would disappear by 2013? Science in the hands of imperfect human beings yields imperfect results. By now global warming theory is more religion than science these days. ETH Zurich admits that the reason for their paper was for political purposes.

"While the modeling used in the analysis is not new, the purpose of the paper was to organize that information in a way that will inspire policy makers to act.

There is more political science than climate science going on here. We all know the planet is warming and has been since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 18th century. No surprise there. And I’m not too worked up over an increase in CO2 from .03 percent of total atmospheric gases to .04% over the last 150 years.

When every solution to global warming is more Socialism you would be crazy not to expect some skepticism. Previous computer models have proven to have wildly over estimated warming. Also a great deal of reported warming in recent years is due to the reinterpretation of older temperature data making past temperatures cooler so as to show a more dramatic degree of warming now than before.

Based of their past record we know that scientists and their climate models aren’t perfect. Combine that with their open involvement in politics and the fact that there is big money to be made in this field of study it is reasonable to not allow oneself to be carried away with doomsday scenarios like this.