About Global warming (AGW)

[hellinter201]

No, it isn't. There's no mechanism by which we could actually change the shape of the earth to that extent. That would require anti-gravity, which to the best of our knowledge doesn't exist.

However, we can produce large quantities of CO2. Which interacts with certain radiation form the sun in a known manner (trapping heat), the greenhouse effect. Which has an unassailable basis in quantum and thermal physics. This is like the first pass, big picture version which doesn't do justice to the subject, but the point is that the analogy is wrong because we actually have a physical mechanism to achieve large scale change.

CO2 traps heat, okay. But I repeat the same thing I said to someone above: we don't have only CO2, or methane, or water vapour on our planet.

[Thepersona]

(1) Speed, on the case, barely means anything. How can we correlate one thing to another? Intuition? Lol. Fact is: we had MUCH more warmer periods in the past, also MUCH more cooler periods, too.

(2) I, too, could post thousands of sites and sources saying that they aren`t reliable. I just want a verifiable model that predicts ANYTHING climate-related with a reasonable margin of error. Not something post-adjusted.

(3) My "personal" projection is based on their actions. Obviously, I can't read their minds to know what truely is going on. I wish I could, as it would make things easier.

(4) The world barely has any equipment to accurately track data outside the United States, which happens to be the place where the hoax originated from. Trash in, trash out. Also, here, on Brazil, we just unfolded a corruption scheme that involved almost ALL political parties, even from opposing wings, from almost ALL government levels, which has been going on for probably more than 10 years. You would be amazed at how people are gullible.

(5) NASA's climate related stuff is garbage for most of the time. I'm not talking about their other areas.

- - - Updated - - -



So, you are suggesting that I should ignore the fact that we don't only have CO2, CH4 and water interacting on our atmosphere..??

I'll answer all of your points:

first one: speed does matter, because of some thing called evolution. if a process is slow enough, species (humans included) will find a way to adapt. if its too fast, they'll go extinct.

Second one: please do. but do it from any respectable site (university, UN, NASA)

Third: as i posted it on the ninth reason, you should be outraged that exxon mobil tried to hide AGW information

fourth: well, no. Count all of the countries who have an airport (s othey have to track temperatures on a daily basis) and meteorology department. seriously, you think that apart from the US and europe, the rest of the world is in shambles?
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming...te-change.html

[Endus]

(1) Speed, on the case, barely means anything. How can we correlate one thing to another? Intuition? Lol. Fact is: we had MUCH more warmer periods in the past, also MUCH more cooler periods, too.

Speed is the main thing that matters, in fact. That's what creates instability and causes ecological collapse, rather than adaptation.

(2) I, too, could post thousands of sites and sources saying that they aren`t reliable. I just want a verifiable model that predicts ANYTHING climate-related with a reasonable margin of error. Not something post-adjusted.

You've been given plenty of model information already, in the OP. You refusing to look at it isn't an argument.

(3) My "personal" projection is based on their actions. Obviously, I can't read their minds to know what truely is going on. I wish I could, as it would make things easier.

This is just not true. You're projecting your own personal willful ignorance onto others. You not knowing anything about atmospheric science does not mean climate scientists are similarly ignorant.

(4) The world barely has any equipment to accurately track data outside the United States, which happens to be the place where the hoax originated from. .

Literally false. You're just lying, at this point.

(5) NASA's climate related stuff is garbage for most of the time. I'm not talking about their other areas.a

Because you say so? Nope. Not how this works.

You've provided absolutely nothing to back the stuff you're saying, and all the facts we have directly contradict you.

[hellinter201]

Ignoring the "large margin" nonsense, which is factually incorrect, all this is explaining is how completely you fail to understand basic concepts.

Of course models don't "reflect implemented reality". Models are deliberately simplified, because reality is too complex. If you want to simulate reality, properly, you'd need a system at least as (and typically significantly more complex than the system itself. So you're talking a computer more complex than the entire world and all the local and astronomic factors that affect it in any way. That's pretty much impossible, with anything like our level of tech. And that doesn't mean "in 50 years, maybe". We're talking about moving beyond a Type 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale (which human civilization isn't remotely close to achieving) and moving closer to Type 2.

Yes, models are simplifications. Because otherwise, they'd be impossible to run. Thinking that's an argument against them just demonstrates that you have no idea what models are, or what they're used for.

I do know that models are simplifications and don't reflect reality. Depending on the model, it could be WAY distant from reality. But, apparently, your idols at the Climatehoax Center don't.

[Garnier Fructis]

(1) Speed, on the case, barely means anything. How can we correlate one thing to another? Intuition? Lol. Fact is: we had MUCH more warmer periods in the past, also MUCH more cooler periods, too.

Rate of change matters because environments, species, and even us, have an easier time adapting to new conditions. That's why the existence of much warmer and much colder periods is tangential, here. The higher the rate, the more costly it's going to be for us to adapt. Costly in terms of lives, infrastructure, economics. Saving the planet is the feel good side goal here. The main goal is to minimize how much we screw ourselves in the future. And rate matters for that. A lot.

(2) I, too, could post thousands of sites and sources saying that they aren`t reliable. I just want a verifiable model that predicts ANYTHING climate-related with a reasonable margin of error. Not something post-adjusted.

This is unreasonable because it's unknowable exactly how much pollution is going to be pushed out in the future. That's a product of economics and politics. It's also missing the big picture.

(5) NASA's climate related stuff is garbage for most of the time. I'm not talking about their other areas.

Why?

So, you are suggesting that I should ignore the fact that we don't only have CO2, CH4 and water interacting on our atmosphere..??

Nobody is suggesting that. Read the IPCC report, they cover a ton more than just CO2 and CH4. Scientists haven't spent the last 60 years focused on a single gas.

- - - Updated - - -

CO2 traps heat, okay. But I repeat the same thing I said to someone above: we don't have only CO2, or methane, or water vapour on our planet.

And a more careful analysis takes them all into account and reaches the same conclusion. You're missing the big picture, which is that we do have a mechanism for achieving large scale change. Which is enough to point out that you're analogy is wrong.

[Thepersona]

CO2 traps heat, okay. But I repeat the same thing I said to someone above: we don't have only CO2, or methane, or water vapour on our planet.

see the first point. the other gasses (O2, N2, SO2, He, Ar, Xe) dont have a heat trapping property/have been stable since millions of years/Are in trace amounts (like less than 10 ppm worldwide)

[Torto]

I do know that models are simplifications and don't reflect reality. Depending on the model, it could be WAY distant from reality. But, apparently, your idols at the Climatehoax Center don't.

The good news is, with the election of Trump a lot of sceptical scientist will now have the chance to come out of hiding and speak up without fear. Then we will get the critical arguments and proper scientific analysis we should have got 15 years ago when this whole hoax started. A lot of people made a lot of money fooling everyone into thinking climate change was man made and that there was actually something we could do to stop it.

[Nynax]

In a world where 40% of people believe that the world is 6000 years old, there is little chance you will get traction on Climate Change.

Just accept that via Climate Change - ultimately the Earth will survive, and only the pestilence of humanity will be removed.

Think of it as the Earth getting a fever

I'm incredibly bothered by the title. As written, it implies that the A in AGW is 'about.'

Gah.

- - - Updated - - -



Not really true. Public opinion on this is closer to being correct than on evolution, and it's been increasing over time. Plus there's nothing inherently preventing religious people from accepting climate science.

Personally i've never bothered arguing for "human caused Climate Change." I just argue against pollution, contaminated water, and smog. It's hard for people to argue against cleaner cities, cleaner air, cleaner water, and a healthier population.

Honestly the path towards reducing climate change is the same anyway.

[Waniou]

The good news is, with the election of Trump a lot of sceptical scientist will now have the chance to come out of hiding and speak up without fear. Then we will get the critical arguments and proper scientific analysis we should have got 15 years ago when this whole hoax started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...Climate_Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.[3] It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations

(Emphasis mine)

By my count, 1988 was 29 years ago. According to you, the IPCC was founded 14 years before "this whole hoax started". Didn't realise the UN had the ability to predict the future.

Also, this ignores the fact that we've known about climate change since literally the 19th century.

[Thepersona]

The good news is, with the election of Trump a lot of sceptical scientist will now have the chance to come out of hiding and speak up without fear. Then we will get the critical arguments and proper scientific analysis we should have got 15 years ago when this whole hoax started. A lot of people made a lot of money fooling everyone into thinking climate change was man made and that there was actually something we could do to stop it.

man, if a scientist could disprove AGW with proof, it would recieve a nobel price/whatever price climatologists get

[Endus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...Climate_Change



(Emphasis mine)

By my count, 1988 was 29 years ago. According to you, the IPCC was founded 14 years before "this whole hoax started". Didn't realise the UN had the ability to predict the future.

Also, this ignores the fact that we've known about climate change since literally the 19th century.

Not to mention the hysterically implausible claim that the US political sphere has anything to do with scientists all over the world.

In fact, his argument that a change in political leadership will have that kind of effect means he's hoping to put in exactly the kind of corruption he's projecting.

[Torto]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...Climate_Change



(Emphasis mine)

By my count, 1988 was 29 years ago. According to you, the IPCC was founded 14 years before "this whole hoax started". Didn't realise the UN had the ability to predict the future.

Also, this ignores the fact that we've known about climate change since literally the 19th century.

You are correct of course, but it wasn't until 2001 with the the IPCC Third Assessment Report that a 'consensus' was found and AGW become common knowledge. It was around that period that the socialists/Greens/progressives grabbed it with both hands and climate alarmism was born.

[Endus]

You are correct of course, but it wasn't until 2001 with the the IPCC Third Assessment Report that a 'consensus' was found and AGW become common knowledge.

What? No. That's hilariously incorrect. Where the hell are you pulling this garbage from? The IPCC's first assessment report also produced a high degree of consensus. And that consensus predated that report; it was simply the first attempt to pull everything together internationally into a single comprehensive report; there were no international cooperative efforts on that kind of scale, prior to the IPCC.

"the peer review has helped to ensure a high degree of consensus amongst authors and reviewers regarding the results presented."
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/...ull_report.pdf

Plus, "consensus" isn't something that's "found" or "invented". It's something that exists because the understanding of a subject is so clear that there's no competing hypotheses that have any real merit. Even if it weren't identified, that wouldn't mean it somehow didn't exist, prior to a particular report.

You're straight-up lying, here.

[Waniou]

You are correct of course, but it wasn't until 2001 with the the IPCC Third Assessment Report that a 'consensus' was found and AGW become common knowledge. It was around that period that the socialists/Greens/progressives grabbed it with both hands and climate alarmism was born.

Ah yes. That's why the Kyoto protocol was formed 4 years before that. Oh wait. Again with the time travel. On top of this, a lot of the framework for Kyoto goes back to 1992 (With the UNFCCC) so... I think you've got your time frames horribly out of whack there.

[Torto]

man, if a scientist could disprove AGW with proof, it would recieve a nobel price/whatever price climatologists get

man, if a scientist could prove AGW with proof, and not some computer modelling distorted with mathematical computations designed to create a desired outcome, they would receive a Nobel prize.

[Garnier Fructis]

You are correct of course, but it wasn't until 2001 with the the IPCC Third Assessment Report that a 'consensus' was found and AGW become common knowledge. It was around that period that the socialists/Greens/progressives grabbed it with both hands and climate alarmism was born.

The very nature of the the IPCC reports is to present the consensus, the best known explanation based on all available evidence. It's not like most scientists disagreed with the conclusions before the third report.

[Endus]

man, if a scientist could prove AGW with proof, and not some computer modelling distorted with mathematical computations designed to create a desired outcome, they would receive a Nobel prize.

Confirming known facts doesn't win you Nobels.

But we've got huge amounts of proof. You're just refusing to admit that it exists, because you like to pretend that willful ignorance is somehow a competing argument.

[Waniou]

man, if a scientist could prove AGW with proof, and not some computer modelling distorted with mathematical computations designed to create a desired outcome, they would receive a Nobel prize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize

Yeah, the IPCC won that (And Al Gore, but I'm very much not fond of Al Gore). Okay, okay, it's just the peace prize but still.

[Garnier Fructis]

man, if a scientist could prove AGW with proof, and not some computer modelling distorted with mathematical computations designed to create a desired outcome, they would receive a Nobel prize.

What is wrong with computer modelling, and which mathematical computations are being fixed? Explain these, please.

[Thepersona]

You are correct of course, but it wasn't until 2001 with the the IPCC Third Assessment Report that a 'consensus' was found and AGW become common knowledge. It was around that period that the socialists/Greens/progressives grabbed it with both hands and climate alarmism was born.

climate change as a thing was born in the 70s-80s