Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[winfield100]

Correct! Neither do you.

@Swampgator
it is intriguing engaging a low level AI Eliza program to see how far they have advanced.
you have managed to snooker a bunch of folks here, congratulations

 

[JRP3]

Using snopes and skeptical science to debunk anything actually strengthens the targeted argument.

No it actually doesn't. But sure, pretend all the non climate "scientists" on the petition actually know something. I guess when you need brain surgery you see a podiatrist because, hey, it's a doctor.

 

[ohmman]

Sure, as long as I can get my experts on the video who disagree with your, slippery consensus. You can't even an simple questions.
What exactly is there a consensus on?

I couldn't answer because you were unclear and you accused me of building a strawman, which we've now established I didn't.

The consensus is that human activity, specifically related to emissions of GHGs, is mostly responsible for the warming we are seeing as well as the increased levels of ocean acidification. The basic tenets of AGW.

Since you didn't want me to reference Cook et al, here are some other options.

From 2010, here's a look at 1,372 climate scientists (aka, "a couple dozen"):

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

And again in 2011:
Doran, Zimmerman

A smaller academic survey from 2015 agrees:
The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists - IOPscience

Who has publicly agreed with these tenets?

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Medical Association
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• The Geological Society of America
• US National Academy of Sciences

And these 200 other scientific organizations:
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

 

[ohmman]

I have noticed that most of the CAGW adherents on this thread do not like hard facts and data. They tend to shrink away (actually slide away) from facts when presented.

Will you then admit that your IPCC paste upthread about extra carbon actually proved @ggr's point and showed that you were incorrect? They were your "hard facts." I've taken the liberty of circling what you're supposed to be looking at. Can you see that the annual increase is 100% due to human-made emissions, and that without them we'd have been in an absorptive phase?

 

[mspohr]

I couldn't answer because you were unclear and you accused me of building a strawman, which we've now established I didn't.

The consensus is that human activity, specifically related to emissions of GHGs, is mostly responsible for the warming we are seeing as well as the increased levels of ocean acidification. The basic tenets of AGW.

Since you didn't want me to reference Cook et al, here are some other options.

From 2010, here's a look at 1,372 climate scientists (aka, "a couple dozen"):

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf
View attachment 428225

And again in 2011:
Doran, Zimmerman

A smaller academic survey from 2015 agrees:
The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists - IOPscience

Who has publicly agreed with these tenets?

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Medical Association
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• The Geological Society of America
• US National Academy of Sciences

And these 200 other scientific organizations:
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

Please stop feeding the troll. You are wasting everyone's time.

 

[Swampgator]

@Swampgator
it is intriguing engaging a low level AI Eliza program to see how far they have advanced.
you have managed to snooker a bunch of folks here, congratulations

I'm not as goo d as Karen Rei though

 

[Mader Levap]

I am amused by certain people here shrieking about how no one ever presented any "proof" of AGW.

After all, it is them who judge how much presented "proof" is worth.

I dunno about ya all, but if I was climate change denier, I wouldn't ever recognize anything presented to me as real proof for AGW. Then I would trumped my victory and exit stage left. Simple, yet effective!

TL;DR: Trolls gonna troll.

 

[mspohr]

Glacial melting in Antarctica may become irreversible

Glacial melting in Antarctica may become irreversible

Antarctica faces a tipping point where glacial melting will accelerate and become irreversible even if global heating eases, research suggests.

A Nasa-funded study found instability in the Thwaites glacier meant there would probably come a point when it was impossible to stop it flowing into the sea and triggering a 50cm sea level rise. Other Antarctic glaciers were likely to be similarly unstable.

 

[jrad6515]

I have noticed that most of the CAGW adherents on this thread do not like hard facts and data. They tend to shrink away (actually slide away) from facts when presented. That said. I think calling them names like fraudsters undermines your arguments. I understand the emotions that are involved in some of these discussions. And I do fail myself from time to time in keeping any ad hominem attacks out of my replies. By I think trying to stick to the facts and letting them attack us a deniers, stupid, uneducated, etc works to strengthen our own credibility and undermines theirs.

Fair enough but I started out months ago trying to deal with this particular person with polite professionalism and was quickly met with condescension and name-calling so I have responded in kind. Early on I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt but since then I have come to realize that he almost certainly is a fraudster so I feel justified in calling him out for it.

 

[lglover35]

For those interested in learning rather than just restating their rigid beliefs, here is why the idea that the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 will saturate is wrong:

https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

Now on to research. I wonder how many people here have real experience in scientific research. I have some. I saw pettiness as researchers fought over the best grad students. I also saw failed research backed by millions of dollars of money. The research NEVER attempted to fake up results. I saw egotistical scientist boast of their great "discoveries" just to be torn down by other scientists. One of my fondest memories is being at Eugene Wigner's house and listening to his brother-in-law, Paul Dirac, talk about magnetic monopoles. Dirac said it was a wonderful theory and very attractive but based on years of negative results he was almost certainly wrong. Yeah, I'm name dropping. NEVER did I see any grand conspiracy to skew results to get federal money.

Do you want to know how what happens when a scientist is wrong? Look at cold fusion. Everyone wants cold fusion to be real and to work. When it was reported there was lots of money put into it. The other scientists tried to replicate the results and they failed. That is what got reported. No one believed Fleischman and Pons were being deceitful. Rather they looked at their experiment and eventually decided mistakes had been made. Scientific research is very self correcting. If AGW wasn't real there would be a LOT of researchers trying to make names for themselves by coming out with negative reports.

It continues to amaze me how people accept the lies spewed by the oil companies but think the scientists are somehow engaged in a grand conspiracy to hide the truth. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. When valid objections to AGW hav been proposed they have been looked at seriously only to be found to be incorrect. People bring up modeling and all I see are people who haven't done modeling before. They understand nothing about how modeling works and about inaccuracies in modeling and the usefulness of modeling. My modeling is in semiconductors but I can tell you that all of you have used amazing devices designed using imperfect models.

I think my favorite climate denier was the Quora guy who told me chemistry wasn't a science and all of the science I learned in college was wrong because he knew more from his common sense. Well, common sense arguments are often wrong. The Zeno Effect isn't common sense but it is real. Quantum entanglement doesn't fit common sense either but it is also real.

OK, back to the posters on here explaining how they know more than everyone else.

They don't , but you do? Anyway, follow the money, as in nearly all human endeavors, to understand the science.

 

[SageBrush]

Who has publicly agreed with these tenets?

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Medical Association
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• The Geological Society of America
• US National Academy of Sciences

And these 200 other scientific organizations:
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

Humbug I say ... humbug

 

[nwdiver]

I have noticed that most of the CAGW adherents on this thread do not like hard facts and data.

LOL.... such as what? Please be specific.

Here's the other thing that AGW deniers and flat-earthers have in common. They can't get their narrative straight because it's based on nothing. It changes from person to person or even with one person from moment to moment with people like you. If it was based on reality it would be the same every time with everyone that was remotely educated on the theory.

'Burning fools fuel has caused an accumulation of CO2 in the biosphere which is altering the radiative balance of the atmosphere resulting in a net warming of the atmosphere and oceans'

Pretty simple. That basic narrative is the same today as it was predicted in 1896. Why? Because it's based on reality. Ask the deniers. What causing the warming? They can't agree. What's causing CO2 levels to rise? They can't agree. Is there warming? They can't agree. Is sea level rising? They can't agree. etc, etc.....

 

[winfield100]

I'm not as goo d as Karen Rei though

quite true

 

[Phition42]

For those interested in learning rather than just restating their rigid beliefs, here is why the idea that the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 will saturate is wrong:

https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

Now on to research. I wonder how many people here have real experience in scientific research. I have some. I saw pettiness as researchers fought over the best grad students. I also saw failed research backed by millions of dollars of money. The research NEVER attempted to fake up results. I saw egotistical scientist boast of their great "discoveries" just to be torn down by other scientists. One of my fondest memories is being at Eugene Wigner's house and listening to his brother-in-law, Paul Dirac, talk about magnetic monopoles. Dirac said it was a wonderful theory and very attractive but based on years of negative results he was almost certainly wrong. Yeah, I'm name dropping. NEVER did I see any grand conspiracy to skew results to get federal money.

Do you want to know how what happens when a scientist is wrong? Look at cold fusion. Everyone wants cold fusion to be real and to work. When it was reported there was lots of money put into it. The other scientists tried to replicate the results and they failed. That is what got reported. No one believed Fleischman and Pons were being deceitful. Rather they looked at their experiment and eventually decided mistakes had been made. Scientific research is very self correcting. If AGW wasn't real there would be a LOT of researchers trying to make names for themselves by coming out with negative reports.

It continues to amaze me how people accept the lies spewed by the oil companies but think the scientists are somehow engaged in a grand conspiracy to hide the truth. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. When valid objections to AGW hav been proposed they have been looked at seriously only to be found to be incorrect. People bring up modeling and all I see are people who haven't done modeling before. They understand nothing about how modeling works and about inaccuracies in modeling and the usefulness of modeling. My modeling is in semiconductors but I can tell you that all of you have used amazing devices designed using imperfect models.

I think my favorite climate denier was the Quora guy who told me chemistry wasn't a science and all of the science I learned in college was wrong because he knew more from his common sense. Well, common sense arguments are often wrong. The Zeno Effect isn't common sense but it is real. Quantum entanglement doesn't fit common sense either but it is also real.

OK, back to the posters on here explaining how they know more than everyone else.

Common sense is common and lazy......good call

 

[nwdiver]

Do you want to know how what happens when a scientist is wrong?

One of the best ways for a scientist or a group of researchers to become science rockstars is to find a more accurate explanation to an accepted theory. Einstein was famous in large part due to the ability of General Relativity to explain the movement of Mercury more accurately than Newtonian Physics was able to explain.

Watch 'Einstein and Eddington'. It takes some dramatic license but I think the essential premise comes through. Most scientists pursue science to refine our understanding of physics by repeatedly testing our theories. The basic premise of Global Warming has been tested repeatedly for ~120 years with effectively no change to our understanding of the underlying forcing. If there was a major flaw it would almost certainly have been exposed by now.... Still no coherent alternative hypothesis that comes close to explaining the observations.

 

[rays427]

LOL.... such as what? Please be specific.

Here's the other thing that AGW deniers and flat-earthers have in common. They can't get their narrative straight because it's based on nothing. It changes from person to person or even with one person from moment to moment with people like you. If it was based on reality it would be the same every time with everyone that was remotely educated on the theory.

'Burning fools fuel has caused an accumulation of CO2 in the biosphere which is altering the radiative balance of the atmosphere resulting in a net warming of the atmosphere and oceans'

Pretty simple. That basic narrative is the same today as it was predicted in 1896. Why? Because it's based on reality. Ask the deniers. What causing the warming? They can't agree. What's causing CO2 levels to rise? They can't agree. Is there warming? They can't agree. Is sea level rising? They can't agree. etc, etc.....

Actually this is quite wrong. Most of those that you call deniers agree that CO2 is increasing and is caused by burning fossil fuels. They also agree that the world is warming, the sea level is rising and some of that is caused by the increase in CO2. What they don't agree with that it is all caused by man and that it will lead to a catastrophe. So when it's asked if CO2 is causing global warming the so called deniers are included in the 97%.

 

[nwdiver]

Actually this is quite wrong. Most of those that you call deniers agree that CO2 is increasing and is caused by burning fossil fuels. They also agree that the world is warming, the sea level is rising and some of that is caused by the increase in CO2. What they don't agree with that it is all caused by man and that it will lead to a catastrophe. So when it's asked if CO2 is causing global warming the so called deniers are included in the 97%.

Ok..... so what's causing the rest of the warming? What percentage of the warming is anthropogenic? What's your definition of 'catastrophic'. If sea levels rise ~3' by 2100 is that 'catastrophic? If 1000 year floods occur every 5 years... is that 'catastrophic'? If 200M people lose their supply of adequate fresh water due to loss of glacial melt is that 'catastrophic'?

 

[SageBrush]

Actually this is quite wrong. Most of those that you call deniers agree that CO2 is increasing and is caused by burning fossil fuels. They also agree that the world is warming, the sea level is rising and some of that is caused by the increase in CO2. What they don't agree with that it is all caused by man and that it will lead to a catastrophe. So when it's asked if CO2 is causing global warming the so called deniers are included in the 97%.

For years the denialists argued whether the Earth was warming at all;
then they argued that it is warming a little, all natural
then they argued that it is warming more than a little, all natural
Now they mostly argue that it is almost all natural, so nothing to worry about and no course change needed.

In a few short years they will argue that it is too late to do anything about so no course change needed. That is, when they are not busy looking for a scapegoat to burn.

On their better days deniers are pathetic, but mostly they are detestable.

 

[ggr]

Actually this is quite wrong. Most of those that you call deniers agree that CO2 is increasing and is caused by burning fossil fuels. They also agree that the world is warming, the sea level is rising and some of that is caused by the increase in CO2. What they don't agree with that it is all caused by man and that it will lead to a catastrophe. So when it's asked if CO2 is causing global warming the so called deniers are included in the 97%.

Seriously?
...agree that CO2 is increasing and is caused by burning fossil fuels.
but
don't agree with that it is all caused by man

Pray tell, who else besides man digs up all those fossil fuels and burns them? Oh, of course, it's all women!

 

[ohmman]

Seriously?
...agree that CO2 is increasing and is caused by burning fossil fuels.
but
don't agree with that it is all caused by man

Pray tell, who else besides man digs up all those fossil fuels and burns them? Oh, of course, it's all women!

Also, just the last few participants in this thread don’t agree with ray’s assessments. I know jrad has consistently said that we are not experiencing warming and it’s all bogus. I don’t think swampy has given much except that he doesn’t think CO2 causes warming. @nwdiver has it right. There is a serious lack of agreement on the details.