What is so hard about climate change?

[code1211]

:roll:

No, what's clear is that you do not understand the science, AND you can't read my posts.

Yet again!!! Volcanoes cause SHORT-TERM cooling and LONG-TERM warming. In the short term, the sulfur dioxide helps cloud formation, which results in more IR reflecting back into the atmosphere. However, the sulfur dioxide leaves the atmosphere in just a few years, thus the cooling effect is short-lived. Those same volcanoes emit CO2, which causes warming in the long term.

And yes... volcanoes emit CO2. What a ****ing concept.
USGS: Volcano Hazards Program
Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed) | Live Science
This ice-covered Icelandic volcano may emit more carbon dioxide than all of the country’s other volcanoes combined | Science | AAAS

If anyone is "discarding science" here, it's not me.



That seems logical... but it's wrong, because you are denying that atmospheric CO2 increases global temperatures, on the flimsiest of possible excuses.



:roll:

No, it's that we AFFECT the environment. That's not the same thing.

We do not have the technological capability at this time to control global temperatures like a thermostat.

And again!!! If humans stopped emitting CO2 today, the climate would continue to warm, because we've already locked in decades (if not centuries) of warming, by triggering off a variety of feedbacks. Melting permafrost, albedo changes, drying out forests and more already locked in decades of warming -- i.e. we cannot control that warming.



:roll:

No one says that "100% of climate scientists accept the consensus." The acceptance rate is very high -- around 95% -- but that's not 100%. So no, finding one of the handful of climate deniers, by citing a source that isn't even a peer-reviewed paper, does not prove there is a massive dispute in the field.

Addressing the last point, 95% of the scientists who care to render an opinion disagree in the magnitude of the warming that may or may not occur.

Just as an interesting touch stone to demonstrate, again, the degree to which the disagreement within the scientific community exists, please review the temperature variations as expressed by four different climatology agencies:

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

You may note, and you may not, that the data shown for any particular month may disagree between the agencies by as much as just under one full degree.

This means that they DISAGREE on what the actual temperature is RIGHT NOW. Even disagreeing on what the actual temperature is right now seems to be a pretty basic disagreement.

Further, you posted that the 5th assessment from the IPCC predicted a warming before 2100 of up to 10 degrees. Issued in 2014, 10 degrees divided by 86 years = they're going to be wrong.

The rate of warming actually occurring seems to be lagging behind the prediction. Seems like it always does. We're at just about 20% of the top end of the range of guessing from the climastrologers.

Those that were at the bottom of the range, maybe 2 of them, might be getting close. Might be very wrong. The point is that they just don't seem to know.

Now you seem to be saying that mankind contributes only some effect, but it might be very, very slight. Is that your new position? Exactly what fraction of the warming is due to Man?

So volcanism causes first cooling then warming? Interesting.

Krakatoa and Tambora Volcanoes are thought to have contributed mightily to the Little Ice Age climate low point of the entire Holocene. Coincidentally, this was the spotty starting point of the "instrument record".

You say their effect should have then caused LONG TERM warming after it caused the short term cooling. Looks like it did. Cooling actually went on for decades. Warming seems to be continuing today.

Are you going to try to have it both ways again or can we blame the two largest volcanic eruptions of the last 500 years for at least part of our current warming?

Exactly what fraction of the current warming may we attribute to these two eruptions and all of the other eruptions since?

Just trying to get a good estimate of exactly what the ROI is on destroying the world economy.

 

[Visbek]

Just as an interesting touch stone to demonstrate, again, the degree to which the disagreement within the scientific community exists, please review the temperature variations as expressed by four different climatology agencies:

:lamo

HADCRUT, GISS, UAH and "WTI" do NOT measure the exact same aspects of climate.

• HADCRUT3 Unadjusted is land-only temperatures, measured by surface stations. It's also an outdated measure, and is normally adjusted to remove urban heat effects and similar problems.

• GISS LOTI is a combination of land and ocean temperatures, and is adjusted for urban heat etc.

• UAH uses satellites to measure the lower troposphere. Not the Earth's surface.

• "WTI" is WoodForTrees' proprietary blend of several temperature measures. It is not, in any way shape or form, an official climate measure.

So: A better comparison is GISS and HADCRUT4, which nearly agree:

UAH and RSS, both of which draw from the same satellite data. UAH is actually run by a climate denier, and doesn't do the right adjustments, which is why it's lower:

Oh, and all of them show rising temperatures. Oh man, so funny it hurts.

Further, you posted that the 5th assessment from the IPCC predicted a warming before 2100 of up to 10 degrees.

I never said that. More importantly, the IPCC never said that.

The highest temperature projection by the IPCC for the year 2100 is RCP 8.5, which shows likely warming of 3.7ºC, with a maximum of 4.8ºC. However, RCP 8.5 is highly unlikely to happen, as it requires a steady increase in the use of fossil fuels. (See Representative Concentration Pathway - Wikipedia.)

So, in the worst-case scenario, temperatures would go up by 0.048ºC per year in the 21st century. Using GISS, temperatures have risen an average of 0.0295ºC per year since 2000. By the way, that's right in line with RCP 6.0.

The rate of warming actually occurring seems to be lagging behind the prediction. Seems like it always does.

Only if you believe the denier bull****, which is deliberately manipulated to make the projections look wrong.

When you look at the actual predictions, they do quite well: Climate models got it right on projected temperature changes - Axios

Now you seem to be saying that mankind contributes only some effect, but it might be very, very slight. Is that your new position?

I said nothing of the sort. What is WRONG with you?

I'm pointing out the difference between control and affect (or impact). "Control" implies that we can do whatever we want to the climate -- which is wrong. "Affect" or "Impact" means that what we do changes the climate, often in ways we do not control, even if we can predict those outcomes.

Exactly what fraction of the warming is due to Man?

Figure it out

Krakatoa and Tambora Volcanoes are thought to have contributed mightily to the Little Ice Age climate low point of the entire Holocene. Coincidentally, this was the spotty starting point of the "instrument record".

:lamo

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Little Ice Age was a regional cooling period from the 16th century to 19th century. Tambora erupted in 1815, which is near the end of the LIA; Krakatoa erupted in 1883, which means that was AFTER the LIA. The instrument temperature record period starts in 1880.

It is definitely possible that the LIA was caused by volcanic activity. In that case, there were more eruptions than usual, which may have caused cold pulses. But, there are other theories as well: orbital changes, solar variations, ocean circulations -- possibly even human activity.

By the way, the LIA was the coolest part of the Holocene because we're 9000 years into a cooling period. If humans hadn't started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, the planet would have continued to cool for another 23,000 years.

You say their effect should have then caused LONG TERM warming after it caused the short term cooling. Looks like it did. Cooling actually went on for decades. Warming seems to be continuing today.

LOL

CO2 levels did not rise significantly during that period of time. Thus, the volcanoes didn't happen to emit enough CO2 to increase temperature levels (unlike some previous eras).




This time, do yourself a favor, and actually read my post, thoroughly, before responding.

 

[flogger]

:lamo

HADCRUT, GISS, UAH and "WTI" do NOT measure the exact same aspects of climate.

• HADCRUT3 Unadjusted is land-only temperatures, measured by surface stations. It's also an outdated measure, and is normally adjusted to remove urban heat effects and similar problems.

• GISS LOTI is a combination of land and ocean temperatures, and is adjusted for urban heat etc.

• UAH uses satellites to measure the lower troposphere. Not the Earth's surface.

• "WTI" is WoodForTrees' proprietary blend of several temperature measures. It is not, in any way shape or form, an official climate measure.

So: A better comparison is GISS and HADCRUT4, which nearly agree:

UAH and RSS, both of which draw from the same satellite data. UAH is actually run by a climate denier, and doesn't do the right adjustments, which is why it's lower:

Oh, and all of them show rising temperatures. Oh man, so funny it hurts.



I never said that. More importantly, the IPCC never said that.

The highest temperature projection by the IPCC for the year 2100 is RCP 8.5, which shows likely warming of 3.7ºC, with a maximum of 4.8ºC. However, RCP 8.5 is highly unlikely to happen, as it requires a steady increase in the use of fossil fuels. (See Representative Concentration Pathway - Wikipedia.)

So, in the worst-case scenario, temperatures would go up by 0.048ºC per year in the 21st century. Using GISS, temperatures have risen an average of 0.0295ºC per year since 2000. By the way, that's right in line with RCP 6.0.



Only if you believe the denier bull****, which is deliberately manipulated to make the projections look wrong.

When you look at the actual predictions, they do quite well: Climate models got it right on projected temperature changes - Axios



I said nothing of the sort. What is WRONG with you?

I'm pointing out the difference between control and affect (or impact). "Control" implies that we can do whatever we want to the climate -- which is wrong. "Affect" or "Impact" means that what we do changes the climate, often in ways we do not control, even if we can predict those outcomes.



Figure it out

View attachment 67274138



:lamo

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Little Ice Age was a regional cooling period from the 16th century to 19th century. Tambora erupted in 1815, which is near the end of the LIA; Krakatoa erupted in 1883, which means that was AFTER the LIA. The instrument temperature record period starts in 1880.

It is definitely possible that the LIA was caused by volcanic activity. In that case, there were more eruptions than usual, which may have caused cold pulses. But, there are other theories as well: orbital changes, solar variations, ocean circulations -- possibly even human activity.

By the way, the LIA was the coolest part of the Holocene because we're 9000 years into a cooling period. If humans hadn't started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, the planet would have continued to cool for another 23,000 years.



LOL

CO2 levels did not rise significantly during that period of time. Thus, the volcanoes didn't happen to emit enough CO2 to increase temperature levels (unlike some previous eras).

View attachment 67274140


This time, do yourself a favor, and actually read my post, thoroughly, before responding.

Do the math of this for me then ? Explain how an extra 100PPM ( 0.01%of our atmospheric envelope) of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas (whos climate sensitivity we don't actually empirically know) can control our Earths temperature ? :waiting:

 

[Threegoofs]

Do the math of this for me then ? Explain how an extra 100PPM ( 0.01%of our atmospheric envelope) of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas (whos climate sensitivity we don't actually empirically know) can control our Earths temperature ? :waiting:

Here’s a hint, sparky...

know what that VH that is next to CO2 in Visbek’s chart means?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Maybe if you actually looked at the exec summary of WG2, you’d understand.

But you won’t.

Because you’re either not educated enough to understand it, or can’t escape out of your own mental prison you’ve put yourself in.

Either way, it’s kinda hilarious.

Try quoting the bits of it that show your point, whatever that is.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Here's what your posts are like. Craig234: "Nuclear war destroying the planet would be bad."

Court Jester: "So you think there were no bombs before nuclear weapons? How is that scientific?"

Science, facts, say that there were no nuclear bombs before humans built them.

Science, facts, say that there was climate change before humans and before human industry.

Science has put various predictions on the effect of increased CO2 in the air. The science of this is in disppute but even if we take the most extreme end of it there appears to be no significant bad side from the warmer world it predicts.

 

[flogger]

Here’s a hint, sparky...

know what that VH that is next to CO2 in Visbek’s chart means?

Try answering my question in your own words using something quite alien for you 'hard empirical science'. It is fairly fundamental to your ultra extreme position after all ? :waiting:

 

[longview]

Weird.

Because we saw this over the last two millennia.

But let’s believe a retired, somewhat confused electrical engineer knows the science better than the scientists who study this for a living.

Strange, I was not aware, that I had said it had not gotten warmer, or even that Human activity was not involved!
Perhaps you can cite the post # where I stated that?
No Goofs, the flaw in the concept is in the idea of a strong positive feedback.
The strong positive feedbacks, only exists in the models.

 

[code1211]

I won't argue that it's not proof positive that humanity is affecting the climate but definitely the environment.

I'll take just 1% of Jeff Bezos's wealth to heal the world.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos says he is committing $10 billion “to start” in the fight against climate change — indicating he may go even higher in his effort to fund scientists, activists and organizations working to mitigate the human-made emissions that are contributing to global warming.

Bezos has joined the PR fight to combat the PR damage done to the PR version of the climate.

This should insulate him from damages rising from the PR version of Climate Change as described by the PR climastrologers forecasting PR Doom for the PR susceptible.

Insulation is one PR recommendation by the PR CAGW proponents to address the PR version of Climate Change, so, there's that... . It couldn't hurt.

In passing, I'd settle for only half of one percent of Bezos wealth to heal the world. You know- if we're getting into a bidding war.

Will the clouds stay in the sky after all this cash has been stapled to them?

 

[code1211]

:roll:



Try reading next time. I admitted that you did not stipulate a time frame.



:roll:

Dude? I already posted the Vostok data, which shows CO2 going over 280ppm multiple times, with temperature spikes every time. That's CO2 levels from only 120 years ago.

I'm gonna type this real slow, since you're not getting it: Because... it takes time... decades or even centuries... for the full effect... of increases in CO2 to have an effect... WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE FULL IMPACT OF THE INCREASES IN CO2 YET. When we do, temperatures will be higher than they've been in hundreds of thousands of years. We're already seeing temperatures warmer than they've been in over 10,000 years.



:roll:

• "You're," not "your"

• I've posted multiple charts that are sourced and referenced, all of which support what I say, and you utterly refuse to accept them. You're hopeless.

• I even took the same data as your denier buddy, and showed how his chart was wrong, and you utterly refuse to accept it. You're hopeless.



No, it's cherry-picked data that does not provide a good picture of global conditions. Yet again! Deniers love to use GISP2 because it's so highly variable. Even other ice cores from elsewhere in Greenland show very different results. That's why comparing the EPICA data to Vostok, for example, shows the correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.



:roll:

I explained those mechanisms. It's not my problem if you can't read.

The only reason I asked is that warming that causes permafrost to melt and other natural outgassing to occur seems very reasonable. In this scenario, warming causes GHG's to rise.

Reversing that relationship seems disconnected from cause effect. That is why I asked for the exact natural mechanism that causes CO2 to increase absent warming.

Arguing that the effect, GHG increase, comes before the cause, natural warming, is arguing that the future cases the past.

In the past, if warming had not occurred to cause the outgassing of the GHG's, then what caused the outgassing of the GHG's that you feel caused the warming throughout the climate record?

 

[longview]

The only reason I asked is that warming that causes permafrost to melt and other natural outgassing to occur seems very reasonable. In this scenario, warming causes GHG's to rise.

Reversing that relationship seems disconnected from cause effect. That is why I asked for the exact natural mechanism that causes CO2 to increase absent warming.

Arguing that the effect, GHG increase, comes before the cause, natural warming, is arguing that the future cases the past.

In the past, if warming had not occurred to cause the outgassing of the GHG's, then what caused the outgassing of the GHG's that you feel caused the warming throughout the climate record?

Your description, made me think about the multistage cycle that appears to have been going on for the last 800,000 years.
Sort of like Earth breathing, inhaling and exhaling.
Earth, normally, much colder, gets some warming from changes in celestial mechanics.
That warming pushes backs the Glaciers just enough to allow frozen plant material to decompose, causing additional warming.
The process continues for about 20,000 years until all the glaciers and Permafrost is thawed.
During the entire path of Glacier retreat, the added CO2 if fighting to keep up with the additional green areas reducing the CO2.
In the end, there is so little permafrost remaining, the natural emissions of new CO2, cannot sustain the CO2 level.
The rapid growth of vegetation, draws the CO2 levels down, and the reverse of the cycle begins, with
CO2 trapped in plant material, which does not decompose, because it is frozen in permafrost.

 

[Threegoofs]

Try quoting the bits of it that show your point, whatever that is.

Translation:

“I’m not gonna read that thing! Too many big words”

And we have arrived at the part where I declare this is precisely how we can tell you are not serious about understanding the topic. You haven’t bothered to look at the basic material even when it’s delivered to you.

 

[Threegoofs]

Strange, I was not aware, that I had said it had not gotten warmer, or even that Human activity was not involved!
Perhaps you can cite the post # where I stated that?
No Goofs, the flaw in the concept is in the idea of a strong positive feedback.
The strong positive feedbacks, only exists in the models.

And in the steadily rising temperatures I just showed you.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Translation:

“I’m not gonna read that thing! Too many big words”

And we have arrived at the part where I declare this is precisely how we can tell you are not serious about understanding the topic. You haven’t bothered to look at the basic material even when it’s delivered to you.

You have not read it. How am I supposed to know what point you are trying to make if you don't tell me what bit you think supports your position?

 

[code1211]

:lamo

HADCRUT, GISS, UAH and "WTI" do NOT measure the exact same aspects of climate.

• HADCRUT3 Unadjusted is land-only temperatures, measured by surface stations. It's also an outdated measure, and is normally adjusted to remove urban heat effects and similar problems.

• GISS LOTI is a combination of land and ocean temperatures, and is adjusted for urban heat etc.

• UAH uses satellites to measure the lower troposphere. Not the Earth's surface.

• "WTI" is WoodForTrees' proprietary blend of several temperature measures. It is not, in any way shape or form, an official climate measure.

So: A better comparison is GISS and HADCRUT4, which nearly agree:

UAH and RSS, both of which draw from the same satellite data. UAH is actually run by a climate denier, and doesn't do the right adjustments, which is why it's lower:

Oh, and all of them show rising temperatures. Oh man, so funny it hurts.



I never said that. More importantly, the IPCC never said that.

The highest temperature projection by the IPCC for the year 2100 is RCP 8.5, which shows likely warming of 3.7ºC, with a maximum of 4.8ºC. However, RCP 8.5 is highly unlikely to happen, as it requires a steady increase in the use of fossil fuels. (See Representative Concentration Pathway - Wikipedia.)

So, in the worst-case scenario, temperatures would go up by 0.048ºC per year in the 21st century. Using GISS, temperatures have risen an average of 0.0295ºC per year since 2000. By the way, that's right in line with RCP 6.0.



Only if you believe the denier bull****, which is deliberately manipulated to make the projections look wrong.

When you look at the actual predictions, they do quite well: Climate models got it right on projected temperature changes - Axios



I said nothing of the sort. What is WRONG with you?

I'm pointing out the difference between control and affect (or impact). "Control" implies that we can do whatever we want to the climate -- which is wrong. "Affect" or "Impact" means that what we do changes the climate, often in ways we do not control, even if we can predict those outcomes.



Figure it out

View attachment 67274138



:lamo

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Little Ice Age was a regional cooling period from the 16th century to 19th century. Tambora erupted in 1815, which is near the end of the LIA; Krakatoa erupted in 1883, which means that was AFTER the LIA. The instrument temperature record period starts in 1880.

It is definitely possible that the LIA was caused by volcanic activity. In that case, there were more eruptions than usual, which may have caused cold pulses. But, there are other theories as well: orbital changes, solar variations, ocean circulations -- possibly even human activity.

By the way, the LIA was the coolest part of the Holocene because we're 9000 years into a cooling period. If humans hadn't started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, the planet would have continued to cool for another 23,000 years.



LOL

CO2 levels did not rise significantly during that period of time. Thus, the volcanoes didn't happen to emit enough CO2 to increase temperature levels (unlike some previous eras).

View attachment 67274140


This time, do yourself a favor, and actually read my post, thoroughly, before responding.

And after all of those words, we are still NOT at the warmest part of the Holocene where we should be if you're right.

The experts are STILL in disagreement where they should not be if you're right.

The dogma of CAGW clearly states that controlling CO2 will allow us to control and direct the climate of the planet. If that is not the result, EVERYTHING they are raving about is pointless.

Now you say we CANNOT control and direct the climate of the planet, we can only affect or impact. The effect or impact could be beneficial or not.

Sounds like you've joined me in asking what that effect or impact might be. Do you know?

If, as you say, the warming that finally took hold in after this cooling beginning in the 1800's was Anthropogenically caused, then it seems to have been salvation for mankind.

Finally, the general trend of cooling across 8000 years was not a continuously even rate of cooling, but was punctuated by warming and cooling trends within it. The coolest occurred seems to have hit during the 1800's.

Today, as a race, we are more wealthy, more comfortable, better fed, housed and clothed than at any point in our history. Today's catastrophe doesn't seem to be very catastrophic.

 

[ecofarm]

You have not read it. How am I supposed to know what point you are trying to make if you don't tell me what bit you think supports your position?

You are a huge fan of Jack's copy/paste so spare us.

 

[longview]

And in the steadily rising temperatures I just showed you.

You would have to identify, which portion of that warming belonged to the strong positive feedbacks.
There is only a finite amount of warming, even when exaggerated, and most, if not all, is attributable
to greenhouse gas forcing, and natural warming.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You are a huge fan of Jack's copy/paste so spare us.

Not really I would prefer he said his own coments on them but they are often very interesting.

 

[Jack Hays]

You are a huge fan of Jack's copy/paste so spare us.

Not really I would prefer he said his own coments on them but they are often very interesting.

Gentlemen, a moment of silence, please.





Larry Tesler
1945–2020
Inventor of copy-and-paste computer functions dies at 74
He worked for several leading tech companies, including Xerox, Apple, Amazon and Yahoo, and devoted much of his career to the idea of making computers practical, inexpensive and easy to use.

• By Matt Schudel

 

[Threegoofs]

Gentlemen, a moment of silence, please.





Larry Tesler
1945–2020
Inventor of copy-and-paste computer functions dies at 74
He worked for several leading tech companies, including Xerox, Apple, Amazon and Yahoo, and devoted much of his career to the idea of making computers practical, inexpensive and easy to use.

• By Matt Schudel

That should be your new avatar.

 

[code1211]

:lamo

HADCRUT, GISS, UAH and "WTI" do NOT measure the exact same aspects of climate.

• HADCRUT3 Unadjusted is land-only temperatures, measured by surface stations. It's also an outdated measure, and is normally adjusted to remove urban heat effects and similar problems.

• GISS LOTI is a combination of land and ocean temperatures, and is adjusted for urban heat etc.

• UAH uses satellites to measure the lower troposphere. Not the Earth's surface.

• "WTI" is WoodForTrees' proprietary blend of several temperature measures. It is not, in any way shape or form, an official climate measure.

So: A better comparison is GISS and HADCRUT4, which nearly agree:

UAH and RSS, both of which draw from the same satellite data. UAH is actually run by a climate denier, and doesn't do the right adjustments, which is why it's lower:

Oh, and all of them show rising temperatures. Oh man, so funny it hurts.



I never said that. More importantly, the IPCC never said that.

The highest temperature projection by the IPCC for the year 2100 is RCP 8.5, which shows likely warming of 3.7ºC, with a maximum of 4.8ºC. However, RCP 8.5 is highly unlikely to happen, as it requires a steady increase in the use of fossil fuels. (See Representative Concentration Pathway - Wikipedia.)

So, in the worst-case scenario, temperatures would go up by 0.048ºC per year in the 21st century. Using GISS, temperatures have risen an average of 0.0295ºC per year since 2000. By the way, that's right in line with RCP 6.0.



Only if you believe the denier bull****, which is deliberately manipulated to make the projections look wrong.

When you look at the actual predictions, they do quite well: Climate models got it right on projected temperature changes - Axios



I said nothing of the sort. What is WRONG with you?

I'm pointing out the difference between control and affect (or impact). "Control" implies that we can do whatever we want to the climate -- which is wrong. "Affect" or "Impact" means that what we do changes the climate, often in ways we do not control, even if we can predict those outcomes.



Figure it out

View attachment 67274138



:lamo

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Little Ice Age was a regional cooling period from the 16th century to 19th century. Tambora erupted in 1815, which is near the end of the LIA; Krakatoa erupted in 1883, which means that was AFTER the LIA. The instrument temperature record period starts in 1880.

It is definitely possible that the LIA was caused by volcanic activity. In that case, there were more eruptions than usual, which may have caused cold pulses. But, there are other theories as well: orbital changes, solar variations, ocean circulations -- possibly even human activity.

By the way, the LIA was the coolest part of the Holocene because we're 9000 years into a cooling period. If humans hadn't started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, the planet would have continued to cool for another 23,000 years.



LOL

CO2 levels did not rise significantly during that period of time. Thus, the volcanoes didn't happen to emit enough CO2 to increase temperature levels (unlike some previous eras).

View attachment 67274140


This time, do yourself a favor, and actually read my post, thoroughly, before responding.

It's interesting to me that I posted the data tracks from various experts to show that there is disagreement between the experts in the field.

Instead of denying that the experts disagree, you explain WHY they disagree.

This seems to run counter to your claim that 95% of scientists AGREE. They disagree and you seem to understand this, but still cling bitterly your assertion that they do agree when you show they actually disagree.

They disagree on what the baseline is, what the anomaly from their favorite baseline is, what the best ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY might be and what portion of the globe is best to include or exclude.

Seems like DISagreement is the order of the day. As I said.

In showing and explaining that the experts disagree you seem to be working against your assertion that they actually do agree. It seems to support my assertion that they actually do NOT agree.

Was that your goal?

Additionally, you, once again, decide that some experts are actually experts and other experts are actually charlatans.

Limiting the consideration to only those experts that agree is one way to maintain the illusion of universal agreement. May not be an accurate result, but if it works for you, it works for you.

 

[washunut]

For billions of years, the planet didn't have a lot of human actions.

For thousands of years, humans had little impact.

For the last century, after technology created the massive use of fossil fuels and the human population exploded, huge amounts of gasses from fossil fuel burning have been released into the atmosphere, having a huge effect. At the same time, trees that helped the atmosphere have been largely destroyed.

Science says that these continued activities will cause great harm. Corrupt companies who make money from fossil fuels lie and deny the science.

That's all there is to it. What's so damned hard? We either make changes to reduce the fossil fuel harm, or we get the harm. What's the problem understanding that?

What is hard for someone like me is to what extent fossil fuel the problem. I don't claim to be an expert in this field or to be smarter than you. That being said, my sense is that many would acknowledge that there are a number of factors which impact our environment.

Clearly having nearly 8 billion people on earth exhaling has an impact. The fact that we are more urbanized and living (and eating) standards rising meaning more paved roads,more cows etc has an impact. The clearing in the Amazon has to have an impact. Then we know that nature has a way of changing climate over time.

Saying all that I am not sure which of the causes is the most impactful. Neither do I and frankly most people know which is the most effecient way to attack this problem.

 

[Jack Hays]

That should be your new avatar.

Your objection is intellectually incoherent. On the one hand, you point out that my liberal arts background does not include science credentials. On the other hand, you criticize my introduction into the discussion of copied/pasted presentations from those with appropriate credentials. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Threegoofs]

Your objection is intellectually incoherent. On the one hand, you point out that my liberal arts background does not include science credentials. On the other hand, you criticize my introduction into the discussion of copied/pasted presentations from those with appropriate credentials. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, I criticize your spam from People with INAPPROPRIATE credentials.

See Monckton, Christopher fake Lord.

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually, I criticize your spam from People with INAPPROPRIATE credentials.

See Monckton, Christopher fake Lord.

Posts sourced to Monckton (whose work I admire, btw) represent about 0.1% of my total. That's far less than the posts sourced to published peer-reviewed scientific work. You need a different excuse.