More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

[justoffal]

In 1492, 99% of peer reviewed studies proved beyond a doubt the earth was flat, but the Italians disagreed and sent Chris Columbus to prove them wrong and discover a new world.

They even threatened to execute Copernicus when he pointed out that it was the Sun not the earth at the center of the galaxy.

 

[Crick]

In 1492, 99% of peer reviewed studies proved beyond a doubt the earth was flat, but the Italians disagreed and sent Chris Columbus to prove them wrong and discover a new world.

That is actually incorrect. Columbus was NOT the first to suggest the world was round. The idea predates him by thousands of years. And, of course, the idea of peer reviewed studies was a long ways off. Francis Bacon, generally credited with being one of the developers of the Scientific Method, would not be born till 1561.

 

[justoffal]

It is not. It is the result of an enormous amount of research, study and analysis by thousands and thousands of very intelligent, very well-educated people from all over the world and across decades of time.

There are no fewer intelligent people involved in the great mistake of galactic Mass due to discovery of dark energy. And yet there you have it.

 

[justoffal]

That is actually incorrect. Columbus was NOT the first to suggest the world was round. The idea predates him by thousands of years.

However he is quite correct about the scientific consensus and the peer-reviewed opinions of the day.

 

[Flash]

In Environmental Wacko Land "Peer Review" means another scammer getting research funds from the fraud is also in on the scam.

 

[Crick]

They even threatened to execute Copernicus when he pointed out that it was the Sun not the earth at the center of the galaxy.

It was the Church that threatened him, not science.

 

[Crick]

However he is quite correct about the scientific consensus and the peer-reviewed opinions of the day.

It was a common misconception. So what? Are you ready to reject all mainstream science today because of it?

 

[justoffal]

It was a common misconception. So what? Are you ready to reject all mainstream science today because of it?

No.... I do not discount CO2 as a factor. I am also a fan of retiring hydrocarbon combustion.
The question is should we do it at all cost? That's where I have an issue. I am fully aware of the fact that the hydrocarbon suppliers are dishonest sons of bitches. However I'm wary of the renewable sales pitch also. Are we in an emergency? Maybe. The warming of the ocean coastal Waters in the past 12 months is definitely a wake-up call. Will destroying the world economy by making a forced rapid change from hydrocarbon to renewable be the answer?
I'm not convinced of it.

 

[Polishprince]

It was the Church that threatened him, not science.

Au contraire. The Church didn't have power to execute anyone, that was done by the secular arm, aka Big Government.

 

[justoffal]

Au contraire. The Church didn't have power to execute anyone, that was done by the secular arm, aka Big Government.

It often escapes people's notice that at that period of time there was very little difference between the church and the government.

 

[Polishprince]

It often escapes people's notice that at that period of time there was very little difference between the church and the government.

Nowadays, its much the same. The leadership in the Radical Episcopalianist Church and other far left religious outfits gave America Gay Marriage, and the government is now enforcing their dogmas on the rest of us.

 

[Crick]

Au contraire. The Church didn't have power to execute anyone, that was done by the secular arm, aka Big Government.

I believe you and I have both confused the life of Copernicus with that of Galileo. Copernicus communicated his theories to two different popes who were both impressed and asked him to disseminate them to scholars world wide. Copernicus was not charged or jailed by any authority. Several religious figures, particularly among the new protestants, thought poorly of him, but it went no further than criticism and parody. Galileo was imprisoned for accepting and teaching Copernicus' theories.

 

[Crick]

Nowadays, its much the same. The leadership in the Radical Episcopalianist Church and other far left religious outfits gave America Gay Marriage, and the government is now enforcing their dogmas on the rest of us.

The state invented marriage, not the church. The institution was developed in ancient Sumeria and Babylon to provide for a stable workforce to make the shift to agriculture work. Homosexuality has existed as long as has sexual reproduction. That homosexuals should want legal recognition of their unions is simply due to the advantages the state awards the married. That the state should do so refutes the dogma of many churches that condemn homosexuality. The Episcopal Church's approval of gay marriage is far too novel to be considered dogmatic.

 

[ding]

Orbital Precession perhaps?

That's part of it but orbital forcing has always existed but it wasn't until the temperature was cool enough and the polar regions thermally isolated before orbital forcing could trigger glacial cycles in the northern hemisphere.

 

[Crick]

Orbital Precession perhaps?

Primarily the Milankovitch Cycles, which include precession, obliquity and ellipticity.

---

---

Why the Milankovitch Cycles Can't Explain Current Warming

First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.

Second, Milankovitch cycles are just one factor that may contribute to climate change, both past and present. Even for Ice Age cycles, changes in the extent of ice sheets and atmospheric carbon dioxide have played important roles in driving the degree of temperature fluctuations over the last several million years.

The extent of ice sheets, for example, affects how much of the Sun’s incoming energy is reflected back to space, and in turn, Earth’s temperature.

Then there’s carbon dioxide. During past glacial cycles, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere fluctuated from about 180 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm as part of Milankovitch cycle-driven changes to Earth’s climate. These fluctuations provided an important feedback to the total change in Earth’s climate that took place during those cycles.

Today, however, it’s the direct input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that’s responsible for changing Earth’s atmospheric composition over the last century, rather than climate feedbacks from the ocean or land caused by Milankovitch cycles.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased 50 percent, from about 280 ppm to 412 ppm (update: 421 ppm in 2023).

Scientists know with a high degree of certainty this carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels leaves a distinct “fingerprint” that instruments can measure. Since 1850, Earth’s global average temperature has increased by over 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Furthermore, recent scientific assessments show that Earth is expected to warm another half a degree Celsius (almost a degree Fahrenheit) as soon as 2030.

This relatively rapid warming of our climate due to human activities is happening in addition to the very slow changes to climate caused by Milankovitch cycles. Climate models indicate any forcing of Earth’s climate due to Milankovitch cycles is overwhelmed when human activities cause the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere to exceed about 350 ppm.

Scientists know of no natural changes to the equilibrium between the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy radiated back to space that can account for such a rapid period of global warming. The amount of incoming solar radiation has increased only slightly over the past century and is therefore not a driver of Earth’s current climate warming.

Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval. If Earth’s current warming was due to the Sun, scientists say we should expect temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the next layer of the atmosphere, the stratosphere, to warm. Instead, observations from balloons and satellites show Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere have warmed but the stratosphere has cooled.

Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.

There’s nothing cool about that.

Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming

In the last few months, a number of questions have come in asking if NASA has attributed Earth’s recent warming to changes in how Earth moves through space around the Sun: a series of orbital motions known as Milankovitch cycles. What cycles, you ask? Milankovitch cycles include the shape of...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Polishprince]

The state invented marriage, not the church. The institution was developed in ancient Sumeria and Babylon to provide for a stable workforce to make the shift to agriculture work. Homosexuality has existed as long as has sexual reproduction. That homosexuals should want legal recognition of their unions is simply due to the advantages the state awards the married. That the state should do so refutes the dogma of many churches that condemn homosexuality. The Episcopal Church's approval of gay marriage is far too novel to be considered dogmatic.

Actually, neither the state nor the church invented marriage, that was done by Almighty God.

But I wasn't talking about marriage, I was talking about the modern invention of "Gay Marriage", which was invented by the Religious Left.

 

[Crick]

Actually, neither the state nor the church invented marriage, that was done by Almighty God.

When did he do that? Genesis?

But I wasn't talking about marriage, I was talking about the modern invention of "Gay Marriage", which was invented by the Religious Left.

Non-Christians get married. Marriage predates Jesus by seveal millennia. Gay couples can experience the same desires and relationships as heterosexual couples; they are all human. The left is not responsible for gay couples wishing to marry. They probably approve of it to a greater degree than do conservatives, but they did not invent it.

 

[justoffal]

Primarily the Milankovitch Cycles, which include precession, obliquity and ellipticity.

---

---

Why the Milankovitch Cycles Can't Explain Current Warming

First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.

Second, Milankovitch cycles are just one factor that may contribute to climate change, both past and present. Even for Ice Age cycles, changes in the extent of ice sheets and atmospheric carbon dioxide have played important roles in driving the degree of temperature fluctuations over the last several million years.

The extent of ice sheets, for example, affects how much of the Sun’s incoming energy is reflected back to space, and in turn, Earth’s temperature.

Then there’s carbon dioxide. During past glacial cycles, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere fluctuated from about 180 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm as part of Milankovitch cycle-driven changes to Earth’s climate. These fluctuations provided an important feedback to the total change in Earth’s climate that took place during those cycles.

Today, however, it’s the direct input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that’s responsible for changing Earth’s atmospheric composition over the last century, rather than climate feedbacks from the ocean or land caused by Milankovitch cycles.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased 50 percent, from about 280 ppm to 412 ppm (update: 421 ppm in 2023).

Scientists know with a high degree of certainty this carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels leaves a distinct “fingerprint” that instruments can measure. Since 1850, Earth’s global average temperature has increased by over 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Furthermore, recent scientific assessments show that Earth is expected to warm another half a degree Celsius (almost a degree Fahrenheit) as soon as 2030.

This relatively rapid warming of our climate due to human activities is happening in addition to the very slow changes to climate caused by Milankovitch cycles. Climate models indicate any forcing of Earth’s climate due to Milankovitch cycles is overwhelmed when human activities cause the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere to exceed about 350 ppm.

Scientists know of no natural changes to the equilibrium between the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy radiated back to space that can account for such a rapid period of global warming. The amount of incoming solar radiation has increased only slightly over the past century and is therefore not a driver of Earth’s current climate warming.

Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval. If Earth’s current warming was due to the Sun, scientists say we should expect temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the next layer of the atmosphere, the stratosphere, to warm. Instead, observations from balloons and satellites show Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere have warmed but the stratosphere has cooled.

Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.

There’s nothing cool about that.

Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming

In the last few months, a number of questions have come in asking if NASA has attributed Earth’s recent warming to changes in how Earth moves through space around the Sun: a series of orbital motions known as Milankovitch cycles. What cycles, you ask? Milankovitch cycles include the shape of...

climate.nasa.gov

I am familiar with that article and read it just this morning.

 

[Crick]

I am familiar with that article and read it just this morning.

Can I ask why you might want to reject the greenhouse effect and human GHG emissions as the cause?

 

[justoffal]

Can I ask why you might want to reject the greenhouse effect and human GHG emissions as the cause?

I think you misunderstand. Venus is also a victim of the greenhouse effect quite apart from any human activity. My position lies more along the lines of not excluding other causations that we may have no control over whatsoever. I believe we are moving at a good pace towards the retirement of hydrocarbon combustion and I don't really believe that if we were to stop all of it tomorrow it would make much of a difference in what's going to happen over the next century.

I think the current renewables program will provide a good stepping stone to what will most likely become a fusion supplied grid. In the meantime I'm having trouble justifying the crippling of the economy in the name of transition.