Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[Oddball]

The two have different meanings. Global warming is limited. Climate change includes global warming and adds additional factors into the phenomenon. This improves there argument with additional data to support there concerns.

It includes everything and anything.

Drought?...Climate change.
Deluge?...Climate change.
A lot of hurricanes?...Climate change.
Few hurricanes?...Climate change.
Cold winter?...Climate change.
Warm winter?...Climate change.
Volcano erupts?...Climate change.
Tsunami?...Climate change.
Don't have cab fare?...Climate change.
Tux didn't come back from the cleaners?...Climate change.
Unsightly panty lines?...Climate change.
Ring around the collar?...Climate change.
Erectile dysfunction?...Climate change.

There's nothig that the enviromoonbats won't blame on the great climatic googly-moogly.

 

[jc456]

It includes everything and anything.

Drought?...Climate change.
Deluge?...Climate change.
A lot of hurricanes?...Climate change.
Few hurricanes?...Climate change.
Cold winter?...Climate change.
Warm winter?...Climate change.
Volcano erupts?...Climate change.
Tsunami?...Climate change.
Don't have cab fare?...Climate change.
Tux didn't come back from the cleaners?...Climate change.
Unsightly panty lines?...Climate change.
Ring around the collar?...Climate change.
Erectile dysfunction?...Climate change.

There's nothig that the enviromoonbats won't blame on the great climatic googly-moogly.

and yet can't name one place where the climate changed. no one surfboarding in the arctic just yet.

 

[fncceo]

there concerns

Where concerns?

 

[fncceo]

Erectile dysfunction?...Climate change.

You see?! I TOLD you!

 

[fncceo]

Thus you have shown that you do not understand something so basic as scientific consensus

What you have shown is that you don't understand that "scientific consensus" means absolutely bupkis.

The ONLY thing that matters in science is evidence and reproducible experimentation.

If you cannot make accurate and consistent predictions that match your hypothesis, then that hypothesis remains nothing but conjecture, with no scientific validity.

 

[Kilroy2]

The warmer demofks think the sunlight hits the planet equally! Can you fking believe how fking stupid they are?

They don’t even know that the sun hits the equator differently than the Arctic.

Now that’s some nuclear stupid there.

Science

Sorry that is what republican thinks in their rational. It has nothing to do with equality as its an issue of adding more warmth to the earth. You seem to think your the only ones who are aware of the North pole and the South pole. The issues with greenhouse effect is not what happens naturally. You state the obvious . Greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere naturally.

The issues is when man contributes to the warming that happens naturally . Its specific to what man does.

Greenhouse gasses allow sunlight to bath the earth in warmth, it also traps heat by not letting it escape. This is nature and happens naturally.

When man adds to the amount of greenhouse gasses then it gets warmer as heat is not escaping.

Activities that increase the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere such as burning fossil fuels. Burning coal which is found in the earth. Man digs it up and burns it , Thus adding to the amount of greenhouse gasses. Heat is trapped. Now since man has been doing this for ages. There comes a point when there is an effect.

cause and effect

Analogy is smoking in an enclosed room. If the smoke does not escape then it gets trapped in the enclosed room.

Coal which is found in the earth is burned by man in his activities and releases more CO2 in the atmosphere. Which naturally traps heat from leaving the earth thus the earth gets warmer.

Its like you leaving the water on. Eventually there will be a problem because of your actions.

So if you have a billion people doing this with no thought of the consequences because man's life span is limited. If your worried about me and have no concern for the future of your children children then never mind. You don't get it because you care about the here and now.

There are over 300 topics on this one subject in the USMB So I am out of here, as I done this a few times and it gets boring.

 

[jc456]

Sorry that is what republican thinks in their rational. It has nothing to do with equality as its an issue of adding more warmth to the earth.

that's an absolutely perfect word salad that says absolutely nothing. Nice work.

 

[jc456]

You seem to think your the only ones who are aware of the North pole and the South pole. The issues with greenhouse effect is not what happens naturally. You state the obvious . Greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere naturally.

I don't think you know one fking thing about climate and weather and the two arctics. you think there isn't ice there. In fact, it seems you think that it's warm in the arctics. you must think that -20 is warm, and that being -20 rather than -21 is somehow significant in the world's weather. too fking funny.

 

[Oddball]

Analogy is smoking in an enclosed room. If the smoke does not escape then it gets trapped in the enclosed room.

Shitty analogy.....There are uncountable variables over the entire planet vs. the zero variables of a small closed room.

 

[jc456]

The issues is when man contributes to the warming that happens naturally . Its specific to what man does.

you know that in order to exist, you must exhale CO2? Aren't humans part of nature?

 

[Kilroy2]

What you have shown is that you don't understand that "scientific consensus" means absolutely bupkis.

The ONLY thing that matters in science is evidence and reproducible experimentation.

If you cannot make accurate and consistent predictions that match your hypothesis, then that hypothesis remains nothing but conjecture, with no scientific validity.

Sorry you don't understand it. You ignore what can prove you wrong. Scientific consensus is what most scientist believe. Everyone can guess what the age of the earth is but everyone will never agree on its age. So who is right and who is wrong. The consensus win and continued work will evolve around it. It will be in the books that are taught to students. Yeah some may continue in discord trying to prove their right. So if more scientist believe something and the few do not. Do you go with the few or the majority as you may never know with any certainty in your life span.

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time

evidence is presented and evaluated. peer reviews are done, and the list goes on. A consensus is reached. If laymen do not agree then that is expected as they really have no knowledge of the subject matter and they can disagree.

If you disagree then that is your opinion. Scientific consensus is who presents more provable facts. The majority of experts will agree. The rest will continue with their alternative. The problem is when the minority has their fan club. The fans believe because it is inconvenient truth.

 

[Oddball]

Sorry you don't understand it. You ignore what can prove you wrong. Scientific consensus is what most scientist believe. Everyone can guess what the age of the earth is but everyone will never agree on its age. So who is right and who is wrong. The consensus win and continued work will evolve around it. It will be in the books that are taught to students. Yeah some may continue in discord trying to prove their right. So if more scientist believe something and the few do not. Do you go with the few or the majority as you may never know with any certainty in your life span.

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time

evidence is presented and evaluated. peer reviews are done, and the list goes on. A consensus is reached. If laymen do not agree then that is expected as they really have no knowledge of the subject matter and they can disagree.

If you disagree then that is your opinion. Scientific consensus is who presents more provable facts. The majority of experts will agree. The rest will continue with their alternative. The problem is when the minority has their fan club. The fans believe because it is inconvenient truth.

Consensus is political, not scientific.

Nobody needs a committee to be able to physically reproduce their results on demand.

 

[skye]

This is the answer to explain all climate change, past present and future!

 

[Crick]

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?

AGW, which stands for Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is still the operative phrase. It is the theory that says the Earth is warming and that this is happening predominantly because of greenhouse warming acting on Carbon Dioxide, Methane and ChloroFluoroCarbons being added to the atmosphere by human activities. Deforestation is another human-caused factor. The issue that you have seen repeatedly from the AGW-deniers here, that the term was intentionally changed from global warming to climate change for a variety of nefarious reasons is complete poppycock. Poster Kilroy2 has been providing you accurate information. The use of the term "climate change" became more common as the results of the observed warming were found to have more and more effects on the climate: increased storm intensity, increased precipitation in some regions and drought in others, etc, etc, etc. As he said, they have different definitions, so one cannot replace the other.

If you would like to see the science behind it all, I strongly suggest you read a portion of the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assessment of the science entitled "The Physical Science Basis". It has two parts: the first is intended for government types who don't have a heavy science background and is an excellent starting point for anyone with a real interest. It is called the "Summary for Policy Makers" or "SPM". It is relatively long, but not as long as the full-up-for-scientists portion. It can be read, skimmed, reviewed, studied or whatever you'd like to do with it at AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC.

I am not a scientist, I am a retired Ocean Engineer. I can help you with some of that document if you have questions but there's lots over my head. Have a look and see what you think.

 

[Crick]

Consensus is political, not scientific.

Nobody needs a committee to be able to physically reproduce their results on demand.

How do YOU determine when a scientific theory has become an accepted scientific theory?

 

[Oddball]

How do YOU determine when a scientific theory has become an accepted scientific theory?

Goebbles warming is not.....

• Repeatable on demand
• Quantifiable
• Falsifiable
• Compared against a control group

All of those are centuries-old acid tests of science....You're in a cult.

 

[Kilroy2]

Consensus is political, not scientific.

Nobody needs a committee to be able to physically reproduce their results on demand.

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.

Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.

Gee if you are wrong about consensus in science then what else are you wrong about?

 

[Oddball]

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.

Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.

Gee if you are wrong about consensus in science then what else are you wrong about?

You're talking about politics, not science.

Nobody needs majoritarian vote to physically show that something like Bernoulli's principle works time and time again.....That can be repeated on demand, quantified and falsified, first time, every time.

 

[Crick]

Goebbles warming is not.....

• Repeatable on demand
• Quantifiable
• Falsifiable
• Compared against a control group

All of those are centuries-old acid tests of science....You're in a cult.

And is a theory widely accepted when YOU have conducted those tests and all have passed? I thought not. Who is it that will attempt to repeat those experiments, check to see if the thing can be falsified, examine the logic, the reasoning and the science behind it if it is not YOU? The scientists of the world, that's who. And how will we learn of their results; of their conclusions? We will ask them. We will endeavour to determine whether or not a consensus accepting a theory exists or a consensus rejecting a theory exists. That is how we who are NOT scientists find out whether or not a theory has come to be accepted.

 

[Oddball]

And is a theory widely accepted when YOU have conducted those tests and all have passed? I thought not. Who is it that will attempt to repeat those experiments, check to see if the thing can be falsified, examine the logic, the reasoning and the science behind it if it is not YOU? The scientists of the world, that's who. And how will we learn of their results, of their conclusions? We will ask them. We will endeavour to determine whether or not a consensus accepting a theory exists or a consensus rejecting a theory exists. That is how we who are NOT scientists find out whether or not a theory has come to be accepted.

That's called "appeal to authority", Corky....You'd fail a 7th-grade debate club argument with that slop.