Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Let's start with the claim about polar ice caps "setting records". Yeah, they're setting records alright; just in the complete opposite way Trump thinks.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/politics/trump-false-claim-polar-ice-caps/index.html

Notice he also views climate change as a myth and a con job. I'm guessing you bought a one-way ticket on the denier train as well?

 

"Denier" smacks of "heretic". You are more than welcome to your religious beliefs, where I get off the bus is when you demand that belief in your religion is compulsory.

 

"denier" is a person who rejects any and all observations, research, experiments, etc. that favor AGW. This rejection then leads to the wholesale denial of science in an attempt to work around logical inconsistencies in the argument. And when that yields no results claims of fraud and conspiracy are wielded in a desperation attempt to save face. Trump is clearly at the denial stage here.

And note the difference between religion and science. Science is about the quest for knowledge based on the reality of observation and experiment. Religion is the quest for enlightenment based on the belief in something from faith alone. I'm not asking you to believe AGW based on faith. I'm asking you to believe it based on the abundance of evidence. My belief in God is based on faith. That makes it a religion. My belief in AGW is based on evidence. That makes it science.

 

400 PPM (.0004) atmospheric concentrations of CO2 affect NOTHING, except happy green plants. For it to cause a worldwide temperature change is a chemical impossibility.

Bachelor of Science , chemistry major, University of Missouri-Rolla, 197-, now called Missouri Institute of Science and Technology.

How about you?

 

Stick to empirical science and drop the horse **** with the religious heretic terms. You are fooling no one.

Trump is whipping your asses.

We are currently in a ice age: Yes or No

 

Very very happy plants. And ultimately, everything else on earth, eats plants. More plants is more better! Why do these climate pagans hate plants?

 

1) Science doesn't use phrases like "most likely"......

What has been done to stop deforestation?

 

I think most of us agree on common sense environmentalism, steveo. It's all the other stuff masquerading as environmentalism that people disagree about.

There's a a lesson to be learned there...

 

Don't forget happy photons. High frequency photons get to pass through. Low frequency photons get absorbed.

True. Carbon dioxide cannot change the worldwide temperature via chemical reactions. However it can change the temperature via quantum mechanical processes.

Good school. Quantum Mechanics would probably be more relevant for explaining why CO2 is a greenhouse gas though.

 

Yep...and a warmer Earth means more arable land...such as in Norway, Greenland, etc.

 

Yes it does. High frequency photons will "most likely" pass through a collection of carbon dioxide molecules whereas low frequency photons "most likely" will not. But, we cannot predict which photons will pass and which ones will get absorbed. All we can do is assign probabilities. In fact, pretty much the entirety of quantum mechanics is based on non-deterministic principals which require statistical interpretations and phrases like "sometimes", "most likely", "not likely", etc.

 

Water vapor is by far, the most insular gas in the atmosphere. There are no "magical multiplications" of the effects of such miniscule amounts of CO2.

The UN/World Left just couldn't figure out how to blame the oceans to fund its Income Redistribution Scam.

And quantum mechanics is largely debunked, actually.

 

From what molecules did these "high frequency photons" escape?

 

No need for all that fancy schmancy scientist talk.
Unless one forgets how cars and cities used to truly pollute.
Get behind a dump truck in the 40's or the average vehicle and
literally see and smell the emissions.How about the major city of
London at the turn of the 19th century.No need to conjure up
what it might have felt like.Just watch Dick Van Dyke in :
- Mary Poppins - { 1964 } as the smoke flows freely
and with serious force.The result ... Need for Chimney Sweeps.
This is ALL a purposeful conjuring of political force to benefit
certain high-ups.Global Warming or Climate Change talk does
nothing to impact actual clean air.Or water.Like the Clean Water act
of 1972 which is totally responsible for the cleaning up of Clevelands
Cuyahoga river which once caught on fire due to polluted waste.
Ther's still an old tape of a guy walking { hopping } across that river
on foot using that debris.Now That's Pollution.
Plus how come The Biggest proponent of cleaning up pollution
{ Al Gore } flies around in a big jet { burning jet fuel for his own personal use }
and lives in a huge mansion wasting gobs of electricity.
That Electricity was so regulated under Obama that ii cost the
average American more than they could reasonably afford.
That's another piece to this puzzle.Like ObamaCare.The cost or super-regulated
electricity.The ulterior motive ... To help wither away the Middle class.
They can't get ahead due to all this over-regulation in the name of being
smart.

 

True. And WV is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However, there is are two major distinctions between the two. First, WV does not catalyze a change in the global mean temperature. It can only participate in a limited feedback with the temperature. This feedback is self limiting such that if too much WV is present it precipitates out quickly and if too little is present it evaporates back in. This keeps the WV concentration in a stable equilibrium with the temperature. CO2 on the other hand can actually catalyze a change in the temperature because as it works to increase/decrease the temperature the feedback does not work against it. So as CO2 increases it will increase the temperature which in turn increases the amount of WV the atmosphere can hold. The WV mixing ratio quickly locks onto it's stable equilibrium point with the temperature. This is why CO2 is considered both a forcing and a feedback mechanism whereas WV is considered to be a feedback mechanism only. Second, CO2's residence times in the atmosphere are measured in centuries. WV's residence times are measured in days. The effects of CO2 perturbations are long-term while the effects WV perturbations are short-term.

And while CO2 concentrations may seem miniscule the effect it has on the solar radiation budget have been quantified as significant. Arrhenius made the first calculations of it's effect in 1896. Callendar refined these calculations in 1938. These calculations were made by hand using data provided by numerous laboratory experiments. Their calculations are actually very close to the contemporary values we have calculated today using quantum mechanics and supported by numerical simulations and more precise laboratory experiments. Also note that while CO2 is measured in parts per million methane is measured in parts per billion. Methane's potency is higher than that of CO2.

No, it hasn't, actually.

 

It reads:
Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists


You aware that geoscientists look at rock and so the past, not the future.
Climate change is about the future. I dunno how engineers fit in to this.


This smells like they asked people from the petrol industry.
Engineers and geoscientists. lol

 

Shortwave radiation originates at the Sun from nuclear processes. Longwave radiation originates from the various mediums in Earth's own biosphere. CO2 is transparent to incoming solar radiation but opaque to outgoing longwave radiation. This is what is making the troposphere and oceans warm while the stratosphere cools. No natural process can explain this vertical temperature profile. It is the smoking gun signal for greenhouse gas warming.

 

Maybe. Regional effects are harder to ascertain because they require climate models to crunch through the various scenarios. Growing seasons will probably lengthen, but this may come at the expense of reduced precipitation in some areas. There are other factors besides atmospheric properties that are in play that effect crop yields as well. It all must be considered. But, let's assume you are correct that higher latitudes will become more arable at the expense of lower latitudes. That means the US corn belt could migrate north into Canada. In fact, global warming is believed to be net beneficial to Canada throughout most of the 21st century, but it will be net harmful to the United States.

 

you do know those surveys by Farnsworth & Lichter and Doran and Zimmerman have been debunked they were faulty survey's

The 97 Percent Solution
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

 

with the recent volcano eruptions we have been having
we should be hoping for more global warming to counter the cooling effect we might experience with all the volcanic dust we are going to have in the atmosphere if this trend continues

 

I will ask you this then how many times does a so called science need to be wrong how many predictions does that science need to make that never happens before it isn't a science anymore but a cult

 

Only one counterexample is needed to falsify a hypothesis. The two primary hypothesis of AGW are "the Earth is warming" and "humans are primarily responsible". To falsify the first you need to show that the Earth is not warming. To falsify the second you need to show that a natural process can explain all (or most) of the warming. The caveat is that you have to be convincing. There are over two dozen datasets that show unequivocally that the Earth is warming. There isn't even a single one that shows otherwise...not one. So while presenting one is intriguing it's not very convincing especially if it is shown to be riddled with errors that have a substantial effect on the end result. It's the same with natural processes except that we actually do have some candidates. The problem is that none of them are very convincing. In fact, the leading candidates presented by deniers actually predict that the Earth should be cooling. Well, that's an obvious problem because the Earth is actually warming. And although it wouldn't be required you'd get bonus points (and thus be extra convincing) if you could show how the thousands of different lines of evidence from different people using wildly different techniques which do support AGW were someone all wrong. The problem with the skeptical viewpoint right now is that there is so much evidence to support AGW that it would take a miraculous revolution in our understanding of several disciplines of science to convincingly show that there is a theory which does not invoke anthroprogenic processes and which makes the same or better predictions than AGW. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen though.

 

Yes , it has, by mathematicians, actually.

Quantum theory doesn't add up, when put to REAL WORLD tests.

The atmospshere is a FINITE, CHEMICAL COMPOUND, subjected to thermal, photo, barometric and chemical stimuli, which are ALSO FINITE. It is not a "Vast Mystery".

 

It's a fallacy to believe that since we know the past we can see into the
future.That is at best as reliable as a weather forecast.However History has
also taught us how certain madmen like a Hitler or Mao successfully managed
to propagate certain myth in order to control the masses.
Weather is and shall remain at the discretion of Mother Nature.
We can attempt to close-in on better and better forecasts but in the end
it's not possible to effect weather short of enhanced Contrails

 

as you can see between 1950 to about the late 1970s on average we had a pretty steady climate temp
after that we had an increase of 0.5 c till about 2000 then it leveled off again and if this leveling off continues it will be way outside these so called scientist predictions
I believe in science that is proven not science that is proven wrong time and time again

I will let you in on a little secret these so called scientist have forgotten or ignored the earth climate has been heating and cooling from day one of it existence its a proven cycle you have long term cycles and short term cycles what we have just experienced in the last few decades was a short term warming cycle

This time we had a few snake oil salesman like al gore concoct a scheme by fear mongering the public convincing them with pseudoscience and propaganda to make many people billions of dollars

I've never debated that the earth climate doesn't warm and cool my debate is how in the hell can you prove this time it is man made when no other time it wasn't and that it isn't just part of its continues cycles