Climate Change

[hcap]

Why should anyone believe the PA off topic pseudo-scientists denial of the mainstream?

Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change
https://phys.org/news/2016-04-consen...d-climate.html

A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. The group includes Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University.

"What's important is that this is not just one study—it's the consensus of multiple studies," Green says. This consistency across studies contrasts with the language used by climate change doubters. This perspective stems from, as the authors write, "conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent."

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by hcap

I think there have been close to a dozen or more discussions on AGW on off topic. Always the same anti-science deniers using similar arguments , and I get the same insults for proposing the scientific consensus view.

Over a dozen yet you haven’t convinced a single non believer to jump on your ship

[Tom]

Originally Posted by incoming

*30% of earth's surface is land
*70% of earth's surface is water
*earth is 5-6 billion years old
*Andes Mountains are 300 million years old
*Rocky Mountains are 170 million years old
*weather science 200,000 years old, same age as our understanding of human life
*carbon is the cause of weather changes
*20 years ago...Al Gore, a politician, took a theory about weather and invented climate change.

A test of just plain old common sense.....for democrats its common since.

But wait.....there's more!

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by chadk66

Over a dozen yet you haven’t convinced a single non believer to jump on your ship

Didn't you know? OT is not a place to change people's minds, it's this:

YouTube

[chadk66]

It would appear he spends a considerable amount of time in life off this site trying to convince people

[hcap]

Originally Posted by chadk66

It would appear he spends a considerable amount of time in life off this site trying to convince people

Nonsense, doesn't take much time to make fools out of uneducated PA off topic climate deniers.

Who go out of their way to insult me.

As you just did, having nothing of consequence on this topic to say. All your absurd criticisms of 21st century scientists not being able to measure temperatures WITHOUT thermometers demonstrates your rather meager grasp of science.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by hcap

Nonsense, doesn't take much time to make fools out of uneducated PA off topic climate deniers.

Who go out of their way to insult me.

As you just did, having nothing of consequence on this topic to say. All your absurd criticisms of 21st century scientists not being able to measure temperatures WITHOUT thermometers demonstrates your rather meager grasp of science.

Just curious, but why is this one caused by humans and the other millions of times the climate has changed was not.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by zico20

Just curious, but why is this one caused by humans and the other millions of times the climate has changed was not.

Some previous times it was by natural occurrences of CO2. Volcanic activity emits greenhouse gases. And other times geologic and solar activities were the causes

Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate.
We have a science to distinguish natural from man affect

Paleoclimatology is the study of past climates. Since it is not possible to go back in time to see what climates were like, scientists use imprints created during past climate, known as proxies, to interpret paleoclimate. Organisms, such as diatoms, forams, and coral serve as useful climate proxies.

[davew]

wow, it is so bad we need to start thinking about causing volcanos to blow their tops....

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/14/at...on/?yptr=yahoo



just what I want, some libs trying to improve nature (for a better world for all)...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

wow, it is so bad we need to start thinking about causing volcanos to blow their tops....

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/14/at...on/?yptr=yahoo



just what I want, some libs trying to improve nature (for a better world for all)...

Geoengineering is not an option. And only distracts from the problem.

Geoengineering, other technologies won't solve climate woes
October 11, 2018 by Steinar Brandslet, Norwegian University of Science and Technology


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-geoeng...-woes.html#jCp

[zico20]

Originally Posted by hcap

Some previous times it was by natural occurrences of CO2. Volcanic activity emits greenhouse gases. And other times geologic and solar activities were the causes

Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate.
We have a science to distinguish natural from man affect

Paleoclimatology is the study of past climates. Since it is not possible to go back in time to see what climates were like, scientists use imprints created during past climate, known as proxies, to interpret paleoclimate. Organisms, such as diatoms, forams, and coral serve as useful climate proxies.

Should the temperature have been warming instead of cooling from the 1940s through the 1970s. Everything you say that is causing global warming today was happening during that 30 year span.

[davew]

Originally Posted by zico20

Should the temperature have been warming instead of cooling from the 1940s through the 1970s. Everything you say that is causing global warming today was happening during that 30 year span.

Plz, don't point out problems with theory when 97% of climate scientists all agree with settled science

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I am absolutely befuddled by the reluctance of some here to accept what is really a very simple chemistry concept. Compounds like CO2 and methane absorb heat, so the more you put those compounds into the atmosphere, the more heat which would bounce into space otherwise, winds up in the atmosphere instead. The heat causes the planet to warm. This is a 2 + 2 = 4 concept.

You can argue about the source of additional CO2 (although 97% of qualified scientists trace it to an increase in anthropogenic sources), but you can't argue about what it does. You can argue about whether to spend federal money or tax CO2 emissions - and I'm not saying you should spend or tax anything - but you better think about how we're going to deal with it if those 97% scientists are spot on.

If you don't think about it now, you may not have the arsenal or the time to do it later.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I am absolutely befuddled by the reluctance of some here to accept what is really a very simple chemistry concept. Compounds like CO2 and methane absorb heat, so the more you put those compounds into the atmosphere, the more heat which would bounce into space otherwise, winds up in the atmosphere instead. The heat causes the planet to warm. This is a 2 + 2 = 4 concept.

You can argue about the source of additional CO2 (although 97% of qualified scientists trace it to an increase in anthropogenic sources), but you can't argue about what it does. You can argue about whether to spend federal money or tax CO2 emissions - and I'm not saying you should spend or tax anything - but you better think about how we're going to deal with it if those 97% scientists are spot on.

If you don't think about it now, you may not have the arsenal or the time to do it later.

if it’s that damn simple then we should easily be able to arrange the end of winters in ND. And we should get going on it since the seventies ice age has decided to finally show up

[incoming]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I am absolutely befuddled by the reluctance of some here to accept what is really a very simple chemistry concept. Compounds like CO2 and methane absorb heat, so the more you put those compounds into the atmosphere, the more heat which would bounce into space otherwise, winds up in the atmosphere instead. The heat causes the planet to warm. This is a 2 + 2 = 4 concept.

You can argue about the source of additional CO2 (although 97% of qualified scientists trace it to an increase in anthropogenic sources), but you can't argue about what it does. You can argue about whether to spend federal money or tax CO2 emissions - and I'm not saying you should spend or tax anything - but you better think about how we're going to deal with it if those 97% scientists are spot on.

If you don't think about it now, you may not have the arsenal or the time to do it later.

I'm all in....let's introduce a law in Congress, have a debate and vote on it. That's how we do it in America. We don't pass a new tax by executive order, let the EPA and the judicial system do your dirty work. Then give an international body billions of dollars to clean up the world's environmental problems.

Better yet....let President Trump handle it! Whoops....he all ready did.....with a stroke of a pen, March, 2017.