Climate Change denial vs History

I stated that your knowledge base is not complete. And that still appears to be the case.

 

They are books to read which reference multiple scientific studies. Your statement indicating that you don't know what any of the list is is telling.

BTW, the Mann hockey stick papers MBH98 and MBH99 were peer reviewed and are junk and dishonest science.

 

Because there is no reason to. By "settled", what is meant is that there is a scientific consensus. Science, of course, doesn't deal with "absolute truths". The scientific method allows for the possibility (however small) that tomorrow you'll wake up with the capability to fly. Thereby rebutting the Theory of Gravity. But, based on a large body of evidence, science "assumes" that you won't, and declares the Theory of Gravity "settled science"

 

The consensus is that AGW accounts for some of the warming.

 

And I have stated again and again that only what is needed to support what I say. I don't need support for what I don't say.

But using that as a reason to disqualify me, you imply that your knowledge base is complete. Obviously it's not since you aren't even able to supply references to support your statements.

More so when you, as you again show here, are obsessed with discussing "knowledge bases" (which is an ad-hominem) and not the topic that was at hand. So discussing with you is just a waste of time. Nothing personal, but if you can't even respond to arguments made by somebody who you consider has something as "disqualifying" (in your view) as an "incomplete knowledge base", then that means that you have nothing of substance to contribute.

So you must excuse me, but time is limited. And there are several discussions where I might learn something. And this one with you is obviously not one of them.

 

And, more specifically, the "Anthropogenic" part. That's why there's an "A". I'm pretty sure you haven't seen many of those on anything concerning Science.

 

I agree that that's the main question, and I also agree that it's not. Because we're still trying to convince thick-headed politicians that the surface of the earth is warming in excess, and that human activity is the cause of that excess. But, even an overwhelming body of scientific evidence is nothing, in a politician's eyes, to interest group contributions who would prefer this to not be true. And what I think is now the main reason: the opportunity to play politics by undermining a potentially dangerous phenomenon.

 

I clarified before that I meant to write "Global Warming" (AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming). Problem is I can't edit my post anymore.

What we do know, and have known even before there was a consensus about AGW, is that if the surface temperature of the earth rises, temperatures in the atmosphere are likely to rise. And we seem to have had confirmation of that assumption in the last decades. Especially in the last two. What that means seems to me to be obvious. But scientists don't deal with "obvious" They need proof. So research continues.

I can tell you this: If I were a scientist, I would be too busy trying to save humanity from itself to make too many public statements about 350 million years ago. Because that doesn't help much. There were no humans back then. So who would care?

 

You would learn more from reading some of the selections I've provided.

 

Ouch - hurtful words. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Chemical Engineering and a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering - Thermal System. Plus my name is on 17 patents. One thing I've learned is that the more you learn the more you realize what you don't know. Keep on reading and challenging your entrenched beliefs. You might surprise yourself. That however takes curiosity and initiative.

 

What is your educated estimate of the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 ?? Are there benefits to a warmer Climate ?? At what global average temperature do the costs exceed the benefits ?? And what is the projected temperature reduction from the Paris accords ?? How much of the global warming currently observed (arguably there has been no warming in the last 2 decades) is due to humans ??

 

The ones that said CO2 will cause a large increase in global temperature this century were all models, none were based on empirical measurements.

None of the ones that claimed large water vapor feedback were based on measurements.

Proving me right and you wrong.

 

Well, unless you can explain why the climate changed very similarly 350 million years ago, when as you so kindly point out there were zero humans around, you're gonna have a very tough time convincing some people, myself included, that we need to spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a "problem" whose causes are not as well understood as people like you would have us believe. If we have evidence that the temperatures and CO2 levels were changing in the same fashion 350 million years ago, unless you can explain how that happened (and why it isn't happening now for the exact same reasons, which have nothing to do with us humans), those interested in real science are going to start to push back. The earth has entered and exited multiple ice ages, so it's quite used to doing its warming and cooling thing, with or without the help of we humans.

 

But every single one of them is POLITICAL, not SCIENTIFIC.

 

Congratulations! And maybe if you hadn't missed the class where they explained how science works you might have even gotten an A

 

Yes.. I know the old so-many-times debunked argument. The number varies from one AGW denier to another. Sometimes it 40 million. Sometimes 200 million. Sometimes it's just 6 million.

So you chose 350 million. Probably somebody's lucky number.

Ok. Your statement says that 350 million years ago temperatures where changing "in the same fashion" and "very similarly". Important to understand what "in the same fashion" means. The "fashion" (as you call it) of today is that the average surface temperature of land and sea has increased by a little over 1.5°F since 1880 (don't ask me to look for the exact number) So you should be able to produce the Scientific Study (peer-reviewed, please) where it is demonstrated that the Global Surface temperature increase by 1.5°F in a period of 135 years, 350 million years ago. I mean, that was your statement. So please demonstrate that you are not just pulling it out of your a.... uhmm... some part of your anatomy where intelligent thoughts don't usually come out of. Peer-reviewed research is the only acceptable way. I will accept a period of 150 years (no more), but no less than 100. Ok?

BTW, I'm not a scientist. Just don't want anybody confused by your constant demands that I have to explain.

As a matter of fact, I don't do this any more. I mean, trying to "play" the scientist. My area is epistemology, and that where I make all my arguments. But I'm pretty sure I can take on this one without much research.

So... you show me your (peer-reviewed) studies, and I'll show you mine.

 

Don't hold your breath

 

The rapier-like wit strikes again. The scientific method was part of every class I've taken. No interest in any of the reading material suggestions I've provided ??

 

From 1880 to 1950 the CO2 atmospheric concentration was practically constant. And 1000 years ago in the Medieval Warm Period the temperature was higher (by ~1 deg C) than it is today - again at practically constant CO2 concentration.

It's quite obvious that you are not a scientist - but thanks for clarifying.

 

Well, here's an interesting paper in Discover magazine referring to a period between 3 and 3.3 million years ago. I've seen other similar papers covering differing periods of time in the past. The point is that the climate profile was similar. So the planet has gone through similar transitions in the past, just like I mentioned.

You'll probably dismiss this paper because it's not scientific enough for you, as you insist on being presented with peer-reviewed papers, but the fact remains that the science is still very much uncertain as to the factors which brought about these similar changes in the past. Either we need to be asking the question about what caused these changes in the historical record, or we can make grandiose pronouncements that give the impression that we know what the heck we're talking about. Me, I'll stick to asking the question and reading what's new within the various scientific arenas. I'll leave the pronouncements for people like you to make.

 

Yes, and peer review is meaningless. It's more like 'pal review'. The Mann hockey stick papers MBH98 and MBH99 were dishonest junk science and were both peer reviewed.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/weat...ng-giant-waterfalls/vi-BBA8ckF?refvid=BBAtkv6

 

When will Antarctica melt ??

 

"peer review is meaningless" trashes ALL science.

Don't even pretend to be honest after a statement like that