Why Science Accepts Anthropogenic Global Warming and Tells Us We Need to Act

[Oddball]

I strongly suspect that you could not explain to us what you actually mean by "scientific" and "political". But I wouldn't mind seeing you try.

Nobody needs a committee and "peer review" (aka pal review) to clearly demonstrate the Bernoulli effect or that humid warm air rising into cooler dry air forms clouds and rain...Those phenomenon can be bench tested, measured, repeated on demand, quantified, and falsified.

None of your globalclimatecoolerwarmeringchange hoax can pass any of those centuries-old, tried and true, hurdles and acid tests for science EVER....."Consensus" comes from committees of political hacks.

You don't have science, you have a popcorn fart with pretty charts and graphs that prove nothing.

 

[abu afak]

What the scientists leave out of the equation is that life on planet Earth, both flora and fauna, was thriving quite magnificently when the Earth was much warmer than now. Species went extinct and new species emerged during those times too without there being industrial activity of any kind.

Despite all the solar farms, wind farms, draconian rules and regulations re what fuels people are required to use, what appliances they are allowed to have, what human activity is allowed to be, etc. etc. etc., the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have apparently not been reduced by a single particle. There is no reasonable justification to assume that if humankind and ALL industrial activity was zapped off the Earth today, it would have little, if any, significant or important affect on the climate.

Instead of totalitarian extremism when it comes to climate change, I am much closer to believing a reasoned approach is warranted. Government should be researching and advising the people on how to best adapt constructively to a warming planet and ditch all the control freak rules and regs.

A Balanced View of Climate Change

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save...

www.usmessageboard.com

What Low IQers leave out is that if the earth was much warmer now, Sea level would be 240' higher. Wiping out about Half of more our Large Cities (and states) and other low lying land.

Earth 50 million years ago​

Along with all London, Shanghai, etc, etc,

`

 

[jc456]

I certainly wouldn't mind hearing another voice.

 

[Oddball]

So, you would go to the first doctor who says you have cancer without a second opinion or or any one mechanic who says you need a new transmission or a plumber who over estimates your bill. . You’re lying to yourself. Literally everyone uses consensus all the time, let alone scientists.

A cancerous tumor can be physically verified and quantified, unlike your Goebbels warming hokum.

 

[Crick]

None of your globalclimatecoolerwarmeringchange hoax can pass any of those centuries-old, tried and true, hurdles and acid tests for science EVER....."Consensus" comes from committees of political hacks.

There are a good dozen ways that AGW could be falsified. That it has not is not due to the formulation of the theory. The absorption spectrum of CO2 can be demonstrated in the lab. The greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in the lab. The melting point of ice can be demonstrated in the lab. IR backscatter from the atmosphere can be measured directly. Changes in outgoing LW radiation, as predicted by AGW theory have been measured by satellite. If you want to recreate the entire Earth in a lab, you will come up short. For that you can turn to a computer and come much closer. So where do you think climate science fails in this regard? What process or function do you think is untestable?

 

[Oddball]

What Low IQers leave out is that if the earth was much warmer now, Sea level would be 240' higher. Wiping out about Half of more our Large Cities (and states) and other low lying land.

​

North America 92 million years ago​

Along with all London, Shanghai, etc, etc,

`

Where were the gas and coal fired power plants and the millions of vehicles back then?

 

[ding]

What Low IQers leave out is that if the earth was much warmer now, Sea level would be 240 higher. Wiping out about Half our Large Cities and other low lying land.

You think 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 will result in the planet transitioning BACK to a greenhouse planet from its current icehouse planet climate?

I believe you are the one with the low IQ.

 

[Crick]

Where were the gas and coal fired power plants and the millions of vehicles back then?

There weren't any. Why do you think there were?

 

[ding]

There are a good dozen ways that AGW could be falsified. That it has not is not due to the formulation of the theory. The absorption spectrum of CO2 can be demonstrated in the lab. The greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in the lab. The melting point of ice can be demonstrated in the lab. IR backscatter from the atmosphere can be measured directly. Changes in outgoing LW radiation, as predicted by AGW theory have been measured by satellite. If you want to recreate the entire Earth in a lab, you will come up short. For that you can turn to a computer and come much closer. So where do you think climate science fails in this regard? What process or function do you think is untestable?

The problem is the abnormally high and unsupported feedback. Get rid of that bullshit and there's no problem.

 

[Oddball]

There are a good dozen ways that AGW could be falsified. That it has not is not due to the formulation of the theory. The absorption spectrum of CO2 can be demonstrated in the lab. The greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in the lab. The melting point of ice can be demonstrated in the lab. IR backscatter from the atmosphere can be measured directly. Changes in outgoing LW radiation, as predicted by AGW theory have been measured by satellite. If you want to recreate the entire Earth in a lab, you will come up short. For that you can turn to a computer and come much closer. So where do you think climate science fails in this regard? What process or function do you think is untestable?

Not in terms of an infinitely dynamic ecosystem they can't.

To date, the computer models have NEVER EVER been predictive.

You have bupkis, Corky.

 

[ding]

How can any reasonable person believe that the feedback is 3.5 times greater than the instantaneous effect when the entire atmosphere of GHG's is only 44% effective at trapping it's theoretical GHG effect?

 

[Oddball]

There weren't any. Why do you think there were?

So the climate changed drastically without any human inputs?

Well, I'll be dipped!!

 

[Oddball]

How can any reasonable person believe that the feedback is 3.5 times greater than the instantaneous effect when the entire atmosphere of GHG's is only 44% effective at trapping it's theoretical GHG effect?

Join a pseudo-scientific cult, that's how you can believe it.

 

[ding]

Join a pseudo-scientific cult, that's how you can believe it.

Yep, remove all common sense and accountability and that's what you get.

 

[Crick]

So the climate changed drastically without any human inputs?

Not as rapidly as it is changing now, but certainly. Did you not see the thread about orbital forcing being the cause of the glacial-interglacial cycle?

Well, I'll be dipped!!

 

[Oddball]

Not as rapidly as it is changing now, but certainly. Did you not see the thread about orbital forcing being the cause of the glacial-interglacial cycle?

Oh, so the there are numerous natural forces outside of human action that significantly affect climate?!?

Holy smokes!...Who knew?

 

[ding]

Not as rapidly as it is changing now

Incorrect. Prove it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What Low IQers leave out is that if the earth was much warmer now, Sea level would be 240' higher. Wiping out about Half of more our Large Cities (and states) and other low lying land.

Earth 50 million years ago​

View attachment 1001346​

Along with all London, Shanghai, etc, etc,

`

Well given that the paleontological history indicates there have been a number of times the Earth has been much warmer than now, maybe the humans planning those cities should have taken that into consideration?

Given that all the most draconian efforts with all the wind farms, solar farms, all the energy saving mandates, etc. etc. etc. have not been reported to have reduced or slowed the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, maybe it is time for smart people to start figuring out how to adapt to inevitable climate change and stop trying to play God?

Albuquerque's eastern boundary is Sandia Crest rising to 10,600+ feet above sea level. There are sea fossils in the rocks on the top of that mountain. No, the seas haven't been that high but these relatively young mountains were pushed up out of the ocean by a massive geological upheaval. That could happen again on Planet Earth pretty much anywhere.

In my opinion humankind serves itself by adapting to what it must on Planet Earth instead of attempting to make Planet Earth do its bidding.

 

[Crick]

Oh, so the there are numerous natural forces outside of human action that significantly affect climate?!?

Holy smokes!...Who knew?

Well, in the case of the glacial-interglacial cycle, the full process is due to Milankovitch orbital forcing reinforced by the greenhouse effect acting on the CO2 that Milankovitch had released from the world's oceans. When Milankovitch forcing ended for that cycle, the CO2 excess waned (slowly on a human scale but very quickly on a geological scale) and temperatures began to drop from the two, now-simultaneous forcings. As ding likes to point out, changes in ocean currents seem to be involved in Dansgaard–Oeschger (D-O) and Heinrich events but the longer scale events involve less and less in the way of multiple factors, as many of those lack the longevity or cycle length. Other positive and negative feedbacks undoubtedly play into the sum effect but none on the same order of magnitude as Milankovitch and the greenhouse effect.

Who knew? Climate and paleoclimate scientists for quite a few years now.

 

[ding]

Well, in the case of the glacial-interglacial cycle, the full process is due to Milankovitch orbital forcing reinforced by the greenhouse effect acting on the CO2 that Milankovitch had released from the world's oceans. When Milankovitch forcing ended for that cycle, the CO2 excess waned (slowly on a human scale but very quickly on a geological scale) and temperatures began to drop from the two, now-simultaneous forcings. As ding likes to point out, changes in ocean currents seem to be involved in Dansgaard–Oeschger (D-O) and Heinrich events but the longer scale events involve less and less in the way of multiple factors, as many of those lack the longevity or cycle length. Other positive and negative feedbacks undoubtedly play into the sum effect but none on the same order of magnitude as Milankovitch and the greenhouse effect.

Who knew? Climate and paleoclimate scientists for quite a few years now.

Do you have any idea of how many steps you skipped in that arm waving exercise? How did orbital changes lower temperatures? And by how much?