About Global warming (AGW)

[Ripster42]

The perspective of human race extinction due to self inflicted harm is just shit i guess.

You're 5 posts in or an alt account. You get sick of these threads because they're all the exact same threads. The shit is the fact that it's the same discussion happening that often. It's pointless.

[ComputerNerd]

We really should just have a stickied megathread so this shit doesn't get posted every 2 weeks.

And that wouldn't achieve a thing.
Some will ignore any evidence, because they can't be seen to be wrong.
I have seen that too many times on here, no matter what argument you present some will refuse to accept it and often resort to some fanboy or other bias accusation.

[hellinter201]

Hello. I'm posting this because i'm sick of all the lies that some people try to put out in order to generate doubt that AGW exist. Because of that i'll put some reasons on why human-caused climate change exists and discredit some of the conspiracy theories behind the deniers (and i personally think that putting denial links should be treated as conspiracy theory on these forums).
Bear in mind that some of the evidence complements eachother. so its desirable to read all of them.

Before this starts, you should read these links on what does greenhouse gas means, and how does the sun... well heats things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/main-ghgs
https://www.reference.com/science/su...014b7e2f6f84e7
http://science.howstuffworks.com/star.htm


First evidence: Carbon (and Methane) has been proven to be a greenhouse gas, or to be more exact, a heat trapping gas. There's even a video on mythbusters that prove it, on a controlled condition. Most of the solar radiation that reaches our planet is on the infrared to visible spectrum.

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxid...ared-radiation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4eOg2LaSY
http://naturalfrequency.com/wiki/solar-radiation

Second Evidence: Carbon has been trapped since ancient times in different sources, mainly in coal, oil and natural gas deposits. This acts as a big (very big) carbon sink. its also trapped in the bottom of the oceans and in the permafrost (alongside methane, but this will be discussed on a point later). When any hydrocarbon compound is subjected to a combustion reaction, it releases H2O and CO2 as waste product + heat and light (if the reaction is strong enough). This even happens on most of the chemical reactions that are necessary to life. This carbon (the one that was trapped on the fossi fuels) has been used extensively since the industrial revolution.

http://www.windows2universe.org/eart...co2_cycle.html
http://www.sartep.com/chem/tutorials...ete+Combustion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
https://www.mhi-global.com/discover/.../history.html4

Third evidence: since the industrial revolution the carbon present on the atmosphere has seen increasing numbers, even more in the recent years.for thousand of years, CO2 has been part of our air in a stable proportion. this hasn't been the case since the 1950s, when widespread use of internal combustion engines and plastic usage went global (plastic manufacture also releases CO2). Methane atmospheric levels are higher too, and methane is a waste product of cattle (it's litterally part of cowsh*t). It's needed to be said that we can accurately predict past levels of different gasses present in an ancient atmosphere, mainly because it gets trapped in bubbles on the antarctic ice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/0...-year-old-air/

Fourth evidence: Natural causes cannot be accounted for this increase in CO2 and CH4 levels (such as a natural decrease in carbon sinks, or volcanism).
volcanic activity has remained mostly stable in the past 100s of years, so that emissions are also stable. And interestingly, most of the volcanic eruptions produce localized (and global when its a megavolcano) cooling, because of the sulfur compounds that are released that block sunlight (and heat, and add to that the acid rain). Even in a weird way, climate change affects the rate of volcanic eruptions. Solar activity cannot be accounted for the increase of temperature, for it has been stable/lower than before.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...noes-affect-w/
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_carbon_cycle/
http://www.livescience.com/25936-cli...volcanism.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...g-advanced.htm

Fifth evidence: The global temperature has been higher in the recent years, increasing in a rate never seen before (some scientist say that its even on a rate comparable to a great dying extinction event). It's very important to note not only the absolute temperature, but the speed of said warming

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/201...climate-change
http://www.astrobio.net/climate/glob...e-great-dying/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temper...ast_1000_years
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page3.php

Sixth evidence: Ocean acidification. This is part of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. As carbon dioxide is dilluted on seawater, it undergoes a chemical reaction that forms carbonic acid. This does, in fact decrease the Ph of the oceanic water (as Ph goes down, it gets more acidic). This makes shell formation (for molluscs) much more difficult, and can prove fatal for many species.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/...acidification/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/oce...al-warming.htm

Seventh evidence: Floods/Hurricanes/Droughts much more prevalent on the recent years. The extreme temperatures makes this events much more typical than before, and in the case of hurricanes (typhoons) it's because of the higher energy that can be used (higher than before). Have to add that Hurricanes and theses type of storms works like an engine, using heat as energy

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/
http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-...s/drought.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l#.WGxG-VXhDIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-w81QtY0ek

Eighth evidence: Species are moving north (or south) because of the change in temperature/rain, moving higher in latitude to a climate that suits them better, if they cant do that, they die
http://ihrrblog.org/2011/08/24/clima...er-elevations/
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/571.full

Ninth Evidence: Some groups (Exxon mobil) reportedly knew about AGW since the 70s. But they tried to use money to get scientists for hire (i dunno what's the exact word) to muddy the waters and produce denialism. this happened because a policy that tackled climate change went against their business interests (like the ban on leaded gasoline and the controversy that happened before that... there's a chapter on cosmos that is dedicated to it).

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...denier-funding
http://www.motherjones.com/environme...science-denial

TLDR: there're insane amounts of evidence that proves that AGW exists. it's condensed on the IPCC report, here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/

and for policy makers (a real tldr) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

PS: if someone comes with another one, feel free to PM me

Fun fact: not gonna waste my time in checking all your sources, but most of the major ones, aside a few, have been involved in climate-related data frauding schemes in the past.

Now, to the other subjects.

1 - Climate change has been happening since ever. No human meddling will increase it or stop it without causing massive damage to the planet. If we actually were responsible for climate change, the Earth would be long gone.


2 - All the models they base their bullshit on fail to predict anything correctly. They even refuse to release their modelling data. They do this for a reason: their models are pure shit, as they change the variables to reflect past conditions, and then claim: "look! what I predicted was right! the world is gonna end in 20 years if we don`t put our heads in our arses!". After it, they fail to predict anything right until they meddle with their stuff.

3 - This is complementary to 2: we barely know anything about our atmosphere. Instead of wasting time trying to prove dumb bullshit about humans being responsible for climate change, we could spend that huge fucking time in real science, and maybe even help the planet in various ways. Instead, the morons that started all this stuff have such a wrong hypothesis that they have to waste 99,9% of their "research" time trying to make their stuff look feasible. The other 0,1% is producing false data or frauding something. I could take a guess into account their personal time spending, which probably will have a good chunk of it spent on personal retaliation agaisnt people that just try to question they on the correctness of their stuff. If someone gets mad at others for asking, then this someone probably has some guilt.

4 - Most people that work on these alarmist policies are actually politicians/politics-puppets morons. Another fun fact: their own scientific team tells on their reports to be cautious about assuming climate change is man made, because evidences are not unison. Guess what the politicians do? Ignore anything that goes agaisnt their interests and scream wolf on everything.

5 - This is the worst. Anthropogenic climate change destroyed the reputation of climatology and science in general. Not to a good chunk of the ignorant mass, which, unfortunately, is the majority of the population, but to the more educated few, which actually have minds that could actively contribute to research and stuff.

[Ripster42]

And that wouldn't achieve a thing.
Some will ignore any evidence, because they can't be seen to be wrong.
I have seen that too many times on here, no matter what argument you present some will refuse to accept it and often resort to some fanboy or other bias accusation.

Ya, so why keep having the same discussion over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

[Cthulhu 2020]

You think deniers are going to read your entire post? Sorry to say that they'll just glance over it and post the same old disproven conspiracy theories.

[Thepersona]

Fun fact: not gonna waste my time in checking all your sources, but most of the major ones, aside a few, have been involved in climate-related data frauding schemes in the past.

Now, to the other subjects.

1 - Climate change has been happening since ever. No human meddling will increase it or stop it without causing massive damage to the planet. If we actually were responsible for climate change, the Earth would be long gone.


2 - All the models they base their bullshit on fail to predict anything correctly. They even refuse to release their modelling data. They do this for a reason: their models are pure shit, as they change the variables to reflect past conditions, and then claim: "look! what I predicted was right! the world is gonna end in 20 years if we don`t put our heads in our arses!".

3 - This is complementary to 2: we barely know anything about our atmosphere. Instead of wasting time trying to prove dumb bullshit about humans being responsible for climate change, we could spend that huge fucking time in real science, and maybe even help the planet in various ways. Instead, the morons that started all this stuff have such a wrong hypothesis that they have to waste 99,9% of their "research" time trying to make their stuff look feasible. The other 0,1% is producing false data or frauding something. I could take a guess into account their personal time spending, which probably will have a good chunk of it spent on personal retaliation agaisnt people that just try to question they on the correctness of their stuff. If someone gets mad at others for asking, then this someone probably has some guilt.

4 - Most people that work on these alarmist policies are actually politicians/politics-puppets morons. Another fun fact: their own scientific team tells on their reports to be cautious about assuming climate change is man made, because evidences are not unison. Guess what the politicians do? Ignore anything that goes agaisnt their interests and scream wolf on everything.

5 - This is the worst. Anthropogenic climate change destroyed the reputation of climatology and science in general. Not to a good chunk of the ignorant mass, which, unfortunately, is the majority of the population, but to the more educated few, which actually have minds that could actively contribute to research and stuff.

for your first point: see the fifth evidence

for your second point, see the first evidence
- - - Updated - - -

You think deniers are going to read your entire post? Sorry to say that they'll just glance over it and post the same old disproven conspiracy theories.

i think that i posted a template, alongside a petition to make denialist posts part of a conspiracy theory

[medievalman1]

That's a limitation on young earth creationism, not on religion as a whole.

Gonna have to quote this and agree with it wholeheartedly.

[ComputerNerd]

Fun fact: not gonna waste my time in checking all your sources, but most of them have been involved in data frauding schemes in the past.

Now, to the other subjects.

1 - Climate change has been happening since ever. No human meddling will increase it or stop it without causing massive damage to the planet. If we actually were responsible for climate change, the Earth would be long gone.


2 - All the models they base their bullshit on fail to predict anything correctly. They even refuse to release their modelling data. They do this for a reason: their models are pure shit, as they change the variables to reflect past conditions, and then claim: "look! what I predicted was right! the world is gonna end in 20 years if we don`t put our heads in our arses!".

3 - This is complementary to 2: we barely know anything about our atmosphere. Instead of wasting time trying to prove dumb bullshit about humans being responsible for climate change, we could spend that huge fucking time in real science, and maybe even help the planet in various ways. Instead, the morons that started all this stuff have such a wrong hypothesis that they have to waste 99,9% of their "research" time trying to make their stuff look feasible. The other 0,1% is producing false data or frauding something. I could take a guess into account their personal time spending, which probably will have a good chunk of it spent on personal retaliation agaisnt people that just try to question they on the correctness of their stuff. If someone gets mad at others for asking, then this someone probably has some guilt.

4 - Most people that work on these alarmist policies are actually politicians/politics-puppets morons. Another fun fact: their own scientific team tells on their reports to be cautious about assuming climate change is man made, because evidences are not unison. Guess what the politicians do? Ignore anything that goes agaisnt their interests and scream wolf on everything.

5 - This is the worst. Anthropogenic climate change destroyed the reputation of climatology and science in general. Not to a good chunk of the ignorant mass, which, unfortunately, is the majority of the population, but to the more educated few, which actually have minds that could actively contribute to research and stuff.

1) - assumption - you can't say that we won't have an impact.
as you point out in 2 we don't know everything about the atmosphere, so you cant debunk incorrect model results as being wrong when by your own admission that we are basing them on is not fully understood.
Contradicting your argument there.

2) - "real science" - as in that which supports your view only, and not that which does not.
That comes from trying to understand something.
It is not the first time real science has been dismissed because someone does not like the results.

Ya, so why keep having the same discussion over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

So those still with an open mind, those undecided can make their own decision.

There can be such a thing as constructive arguments.
And then that is that which isn't.

[hellinter201]

1) - assumption - you can't say that we won't have an impact.
as you point out in 2 we don't know everything about the atmosphere, so you cant debunk incorrect model results as being wrong when by your own admission that we are basing them on is not fully understood.
Contradicting your argument there.

2) - "real science" - as in that which supports your view only, and not that which does not.
That comes from trying to understand something.
It is not the first time real science has been dismissed because someone does not like the results.



So those still with an open mind, those undecided can make their own decision.

There can be such a thing as constructive arguments.
And then that is that which isn't.

Do you think we could change the Earth`s shape to a square? If we actually could, would we cause massive damage to the planet`s already established systems? I hope you know the answer. This is a pretty good analogy to the climate change thing.

Also, with real science I mean something that follows the scientific method. If it gives a different, unexpected and previously unknown result with the testing, then the hypothesis is wrong. If I'm proved wrong by verifiable facts, I'll assume I'm dumb. Until then, man made climate change is hoax.

[Thepersona]

Do you think we could change the Earth`s shape to a square? If we actually could, would we cause massive damage to the planet`s already established systems? I hope you know the answer. This is a pretty good analogy to the climate change thing.

Also, with real science I mean something that follows the scientific method. If it gives a different, unexpected and previously unknown result with the testing, then the hypothesis is wrong. If I'm proved wrong by verifiable facts, I'll assume I'm dumb. Until then, man made climate change is hoax.

The scientific method did prove that CO2 and CH4 are in fact greenhouse gasses. in lab results... see my first evidence. the other ones try to build on that

[Endus]

Fun fact: not gonna waste my time in checking all your sources, but most of the major ones, aside a few, have been involved in climate-related data frauding schemes in the past.

That's a straight-up lie. You're either parroting some denier blog you didn't critically examine, or you're jumping in with malicious intent yourself. "Climategate" turned out to be absolutely nothing; https://www.skepticalscience.com/fak...imategate.html

Now, to the other subjects.

1 - Climate change has been happening since ever. No human meddling will increase it or stop it without causing massive damage to the planet. If we actually were responsible for climate change, the Earth would be long gone.

2 - All the models they base their bullshit on fail to predict anything correctly. They even refuse to release their modelling data. They do this for a reason: their models are pure shit, as they change the variables to reflect past conditions, and then claim: "look! what I predicted was right! the world is gonna end in 20 years if we don`t put our heads in our arses!". After it, they fail to predict anything right until they meddle with their stuff.

3 - This is complementary to 2: we barely know anything about our atmosphere. Instead of wasting time trying to prove dumb bullshit about humans being responsible for climate change, we could spend that huge fucking time in real science, and maybe even help the planet in various ways. Instead, the morons that started all this stuff have such a wrong hypothesis that they have to waste 99,9% of their "research" time trying to make their stuff look feasible. The other 0,1% is producing false data or frauding something. I could take a guess into account their personal time spending, which probably will have a good chunk of it spent on personal retaliation agaisnt people that just try to question they on the correctness of their stuff. If someone gets mad at others for asking, then this someone probably has some guilt.

4 - Most people that work on these alarmist policies are actually politicians/politics-puppets morons. Another fun fact: their own scientific team tells on their reports to be cautious about assuming climate change is man made, because evidences are not unison. Guess what the politicians do? Ignore anything that goes agaisnt their interests and scream wolf on everything.

5 - This is the worst. Anthropogenic climate change destroyed the reputation of climatology and science in general. Not to a good chunk of the ignorant mass, which, unfortunately, is the majority of the population, but to the more educated few, which actually have minds that could actively contribute to research and stuff.

(1) is trivially correct but asking the wrong question. The speed with which the climate is currently changing is well beyond that of natural cycles, and the factors driving it are not natural either. That climates have changed in the past is irrelevant; they haven't changed this quickly, nor due to these particular drivers.

(2) is just obviously, blatantly incorrect. Models are highly reliable and have accurately modeled warming since they were developed; https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

(3) is just a projection of personal willful ignorance; it simply isn't true when we're talking about climate scientists.

(4) is literally a conspiracy theory; you're arguing that almost all the world's climate scientists, in every single country they work in, in all the hundreds if not thousands of groups they work for, they are all collaborating in some grand conspiracy to defraud the public, for no identifiable gain or profit whatsoever by any of them, and with no identifiable political consistency behind them (because, again, they live and work in well over 100 countries (the IPCC has participants from nearly 200 countries). This is a ludicrously silly argument. The idea that Molemen are blackmailing government officials to serve their subterranean purposes is more believable than this garbage.

And (5) is only true if you're one of these conspiracists; it's like saying that "NASA has no credibility, after all this preaching about a spherical Earth and the lies that they landed on the Moon." Unless you're already a flat-Earther or moon-landing-denier, that isn't convincing of any point other than confirming that you're a nut.

[Thepersona]

snippity snip

I personally think that we (as mmo-c community) could build on my first post, and reach like 20 evidences lol

[ComputerNerd]

Do you think we could change the Earth`s shape to a square? If we actually could, would we cause massive damage to the planet`s already established systems? I hope you know the answer. This is a pretty good analogy to the climate change thing.

Also, with real science I mean something that follows the scientific method. If it gives a different, unexpected and previously unknown result with the testing, then the hypothesis is wrong. If I'm proved wrong by verifiable facts, I'll assume I'm dumb. Until then, man made climate change is hoax.

And that does not prove the science wrong, it can only mean we are as you yourself stated that we don't have complete information.
You contradicted your own argument and are now flailing around trying to hide that.

[hellinter201]

The scientific method did prove that CO2 and CH4 are in fact greenhouse gasses. in lab results... see my first evidence. the other ones try to build on that

These experiments obviously do not reflect planet-wide systems. I work in the electrical area, and models made for academic purposes ALWAYS fail to reflect implemented reality, and they do so by a large margin. And we do have a lot more knowledge on electricity stuff than atmosphere-related stuff. That is why we should stop spending time trying to prove disproven hypothesis.

[Thepersona]

These experiments obviously do not reflect planet-wide systems. I work in the electrical area, and models made for academic purposes ALWAYS fail to reflect implemented reality, and they do so by a large margin. And we do have a lot more knowledge on electricity stuff than atmosphere-related stuff. That is why we should stop spending time trying to prove disproven hypothesis.

i really think that you should read the evidence that i posted... because it has been proven that Co2 and CH4 (alongside water vapor) are greenhouse gasses. it's like science 101. hell, we even have venus as another proof

[Garnier Fructis]

Fun fact: not gonna waste my time in checking all your sources, but most of the major ones, aside a few, have been involved in climate-related data frauding schemes in the past.

Multiple independent investigations have cleared them of fraud. On a related note, raw data is useless is has to be processed to be meaningful. This is true in all fields of experimental science.

1 - Climate change has been happening since ever. No human meddling will increase it or stop it without causing massive damage to the planet. If we actually were responsible for climate change, the Earth would be long gone.

Shaking a tree will cause fruit to fall, so will gravity. That gravity causes fruit to fall does not mean humans can't achieve a similar effect. Same principle at play. Climate change happening independent of us does not mean that we can't contribute or be part of it. What is your mathematics and physical modeling to support the last two sentences?

2 - All the models they base their bullshit on fail to predict anything correctly. They even refuse to release their modelling data. They do this for a reason: their models are pure shit, as they change the variables to reflect past conditions, and then claim: "look! what I predicted was right! the world is gonna end in 20 years if we don`t put our heads in our arses!". After it, they fail to predict anything right until they meddle with their stuff.

Predictions are given as ranges, because there is a human element involved in how much pollution we put out moving forward which adds uncertainty, and also the fact that the underlying system is statistical so there are random fluctuations on top of that. The models taken together do just fine.

3 - This is complementary to 2: we barely know anything about our atmosphere. Instead of wasting time trying to prove dumb bullshit about humans being responsible for climate change, we could spend that huge fucking time in real science, and maybe even help the planet in various ways. Instead, the morons that started all this stuff have such a wrong hypothesis that they have to waste 99,9% of their "research" time trying to make their stuff look feasible. The other 0,1% is producing false data or frauding something. I could take a guess into account their personal time spending, which probably will have a good chunk of it spent on personal retaliation agaisnt people that just try to question they on the correctness of their stuff. If someone gets mad at others for asking, then this someone probably has some guilt.

On what basis can you claim that we barely know anything about our atmosphere? We understand a lot about the dynamics of the atmosphere decades to centuries of fluid dynamics research. We know a lot about the physical and chemical properties of the various layers. We know how it interacts with radiation, our knowledge being a synthesis of thermal, quantum and EM physics. What is, in your view, the real science? Can you give some of the principles, a quick but detailed description?

4 - Most people that work on these alarmist policies are actually politicians/politics-puppets morons. Another fun fact: their own scientific team tells on their reports to be cautious about assuming climate change is man made, because evidences are not unison. Guess what the politicians do? Ignore anything that goes agaisnt their interests and scream wolf on everything.

The only interpretation of all the evidence that makes sense is modern climate change theory. I quite doubt that their scientific advisors are telling them otherwise, unless they were hired because they're contrarian.

5 - This is the worst. Anthropogenic climate change destroyed the reputation of climatology and science in general. Not to a good chunk of the ignorant mass, which, unfortunately, is the majority of the population, but to the more educated few, which actually have minds that could actively contribute to research and stuff.

Their reputation among the educated is doing just fine.

[Knaar]

With people still believing earth is flat, there will always be people saying AGW doesnt exist.

[hellinter201]

That's a straight-up lie. You're either parroting some denier blog you didn't critically examine, or you're jumping in with malicious intent yourself. "Climategate" turned out to be absolutely nothing; https://www.skepticalscience.com/fak...imategate.html



(1) is trivially correct but asking the wrong question. The speed with which the climate is currently changing is well beyond that of natural cycles, and the factors driving it are not natural either. That climates have changed in the past is irrelevant; they haven't changed this quickly, nor due to these particular drivers.

(2) is just obviously, blatantly incorrect. Models are highly reliable and have accurately modeled warming since they were developed; https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

(3) is just a projection of personal willful ignorance; it simply isn't true when we're talking about climate scientists.

(4) is literally a conspiracy theory; you're arguing that almost all the world's climate scientists, in every single country they work in, in all the hundreds if not thousands of groups they work for, they are all collaborating in some grand conspiracy to defraud the public, for no identifiable gain or profit whatsoever by any of them, and with no identifiable political consistency behind them (because, again, they live and work in well over 100 countries (the IPCC has participants from nearly 200 countries). This is a ludicrously silly argument. The idea that Molemen are blackmailing government officials to serve their subterranean purposes is more believable than this garbage.

And (5) is only true if you're one of these conspiracists; it's like saying that "NASA has no credibility, after all this preaching about a spherical Earth and the lies that they landed on the Moon." Unless you're already a flat-Earther or moon-landing-denier, that isn't convincing of any point other than confirming that you're a nut.

(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 - - -

i really think that you should read the evidence that i posted... because it has been proven that Co2 and CH4 (alongside water vapor) are greenhouse gasses. it's like science 101. hell, we even have venus as another proof

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

[Garnier Fructis]

Do you think we could change the Earth`s shape to a square? If we actually could, would we cause massive damage to the planet`s already established systems? I hope you know the answer. This is a pretty good analogy to the climate change thing.

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.

[Endus]

These experiments obviously do not reflect planet-wide systems. I work in the electrical area, and models made for academic purposes ALWAYS fail to reflect implemented reality, and they do so by a large margin.

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.