Like in Galileo's time government/church promoted orthodoxy is only overcome by time, exposure, and the willingness of the few to stand bravely against power. First it was global cooling, then global warming, and now it has shape shifted into climate change. Those who would use and manipulate "facts" to fit their theory needn't worry about being accurate or correct, all they need is money (government provided) a big enough bull horn (the media), and the fertile minds of the ignorant masses to carry on their fraud indefinitely. Scientific studies have long shown that the earth was warmer in the past, and CO2 was higher in the past - how to get around this?? Simple - rewrite the history. Manipulate the data to wipe out the MWP, "cool" the 30's, "smooth" the 70's, and spike the present... easy, peasy, japanesy. Orthodoxy, tenure, retirement pensions, publishing, fear of reprisal, etc, are all reasons why more scientists don't speak out. Some, upon retirement, when they can no longer be sanctioned for speaking blasphemy, are indeed speaking out against the orthodoxy. There's a reason why none of the models save one (the Russian model) are not even close to observations... like anything computer based, if the people entering the data have an agenda - and warmists certainly have that - it is little more than Garbage In Garbage Out. You guys are being taken for the proverbial ride.
Another super intellect that thinks the same fix news promoted ignorant response to what climate change is. Every scientist in the world agrees that the climate changes. Dah. What is most worrisome is the rate of change in the climate. The real height of ignorance is simply being at odds with every other country, every university, every major industry, all of our own institutions. It takes a fool to think they are that smart. But keep it up and continue to be laughed at by any one with the mentality slightly above a mature cucumber.
Global cooling was never a concern according to the scientific consensus. This was a concern made up by deniers. THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS The Sun was dimmer in the past. The Sun like all main sequence stars brightens as it ages. The Sun brightens by 1% every 100 million years. For every 1% dimmer the Sun is it takes 2x as much CO2 to offset the reduced solar radiation. There has been no substantiated claim of fraudulent manipulation of data. The MWP has not been wiped out. The LIA has not been wiped out. You are literally making sh** up right now; or at least regurgitating make believe nonsense from denier blog sites. Yeah, yeah. It's all a big conspiracy isn't it just like how aliens have been on the planet the whole time and how Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks? Seriously? Do you really believe this stuff? Wrong again. It is you who has been conned. FWIW I'm already fully aware that none of what science says will matter to you. I've never met anyone who has pulled out the desperation argument of fraud, hoax, and conspiracy who has had any interest in what observations, experiments, facts, and a mountain of evidence from all disciplines of science have to say. I'll even make a prediction regarding your next post. It'll have some element of the above (fraud, hoax, conspiracy, etc.)
The Crackpot Index John Baez ...40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
the glass of water was Wist43's analogy but I went with as it suffices as the simplest test for rising sea levels...wist43 clearly didn't understand the situation eye dropper?...proportional amount isn't relevant, adding ice cubes to water clearly demonstrates land based ice will raise sea levels... people who have a basic grasp of the science understand the urgency is real, those who are in ideological/denial are oblivious, humanity has 10-20yrs to get co2 emissions under control if not all bets on survival of the ecology or civilization as we know it are off melting ice cubes(sea ice) in a glass of water won't change the level... adding ice cubes(land based glacial meltwater)to a glass of water will...eyedropper
you've demonstrated you didn't understand your own simple science analogy and now you're claiming you've studied the "actual science"...I gotta surprise for ya dude, the science really does support the scariest of scenarios but you'd "actually" need to follow and have a minimum comprehension of the science involved...
One great irony of the internet is that people think they can read a few websites [Fox, Limbaugh, Breitbart], and that makes them experts. It's even better than staying at a Holiday Inn!
So you've never stopped to consider that global sea level rise can only be measured accurately relative to Earth's center of mass - assuming, of course, that global warming doesn't cause continents to sink.
I have a simple solution for you then. This inventor handles every problem you fret about. He can combat global warming in a way that makes me very happy. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marsha...ing-inedible-plant-life-into-fuel-60-minutes/
Errrr WTF!!! So.........you know more than every oceanographer on the planet? https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...how-we-measure-global-sea-level-changes-0?amp
Taken by professional reviewed by scientists and critiqued by academics so...... you have based your opinion on.......
What he doesn't understand is that "local benchmarks" from all over the world are used to create an average.
I'm a chemist... I understand the science much better than you I'm sure. The computer models are nothing more than GIGO, and that's your "proof". Of course that isn't proof at all. That's just people with an agenda, not the least of which is profit, manipulating data to produce a desired result. That isn't science, it's fraud
It was Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius who first quantified the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 and even predicted the Earth would warm as a result of anthroprogenically released CO2. He even correctly predicted that the poles would warm faster than the equator and that the oceans would scrub out a large portion of the CO2 emissions via different process some of which are chemical in nature. And he did all of this prior to 1900. AGW theory is not based on computer models at all. It's based on molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics. Computer models weren't even used for climate research until the late 70's and only in a limited form. It wasn't until the 90's that global circulation models came into widespread use. Scientists had long realized that the Earth was going to warm and that CO2 was going to play a significant role long before computer models were used as tools. In fact, global warming theory has an 80 year history of development without computer models. Computers weren't even a thing when Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar did the pioneering work. And neither of them are liberal, or democrat, or even American so those conspiracy theories suggesting it is a domination plot by liberals/democrats is bunk. Oh, and their predictions of the warming have proven to be remarkably accurate especially neither fully understood the quantum mechanical principals involved at the time. Also, refer back to post #78. I present the real results of computer models instead of the make believe stuff you see on denier blog sites. Yep. There it is...the "it's all a fraud" claim. So, if your position is genuine and not itself based on an agenda then it should be very easy to answer these questions. What is causing the troposphere and hydrosphere to warm while the stratosphere cools? What caused the Earth to be significantly warmer in the past when the Sun was significantly dimmer? What is your solution to the faint young Sun problem? What molecular physics and quantum mechanical principals can you invoke that supports your position that CO2 is nothing but a trace gas with an insignificant effect?
Thank you for proving thst you cannot find one single scientific organization anywhere in the world thst disputes the reality of AGW. For some strange reason I believe I will gave more trust in the scientists than in your unsupported opinions.
And why would anyone think a chemist has a clue about climate models or the ability to evaluate their validity?
There are well into the hundreds of "scientists" along with those that use science daily as their jobs who agree with you. They do not show us proof, they construct models that come with a built in purpose. I look at a scientist such as Dr. Richard Lindzen who the left constantly smears and wonder why they think such a learned scientist would deliver speeches globally that we fear a thing we need not fear. Fear is built into the psyches of the alarmists. They should calm down and accept this great planet with it's warts. For fuels, now a man, a non scientist in fact by training, but a true pioneering scientist by deeds has come with the solution. Let's get behind this solution should his fuel be competitively priced. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marsha...ing-inedible-plant-life-into-fuel-60-minutes/
That is where the wheels hit the road - price. We have had solutions in place since the 70s and 80s; the most significant being fuels from algae. Given it's high efficiency, I doubt anyone will come up with a better solution. Fuels from algae have dropped from about $30 a gallon ten years ago, to around $5 a gallon now. So it is almost here. You can make proven carbon-neutral diesel and gasoline substitutes, hydrogen, and plastics, as well as remediation of everything from radioactive materials, to nitrogen from farming. And as I mentioned, because of its high efficiency, it is a top option to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. With controlled algae blooms, it's entirely possible and already in the works. After the fuel products are removed, algae continues to provide a high-protein feed stock for cattle as well as humans. The first long-term study of this fuel option was under the Aquatic Species Program. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf Work was stalled when the price of fuels dropped. But once prices bounced back, the work continued. At over $3 a gallon, petro fuels could be replaced with algae fuels almost transparently, very soon.
You're burying your head in the sand doing the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "la..la..la". Read the IPCC AR5 report. It is the culmination of 30,000 lines of evidence reviewed by 3,500 experts to produce a 5,000 page summary of the science. And that's just from one institution.
Perhaps you should watch the video that came included with my link. 60 minutes, suspiciously did not mention price. But the process uses electric current and transforms biomass. Very important also is that his system does not kill off so called fossil fuels. Coal in my opinion is actually a fossil fuel. But petroleum may be constantly generated in Earth as is volcanic action. My professional encounter with oil well drilling made me suspicious it is not actually fossil fuel. Why one asks of me? It is found at many levels in Earth and some are simply far too deep to have once been surface soils. We are talking of depths of many many miles. Study his company. Xyleco Testing has shown that the global warming potential of Xyleco cellulosic ethanol is 83% lower than gasoline and 77% lower than corn ethanol.
Exxon and other companies are even producing commercials to familiarize the public with the next source of energy for the world.
Read Xyleco reports. Testing has shown that the global warming potential of Xyleco cellulosic ethanol is 83% lower than gasoline and 77% lower than corn ethanol. https://www.xyleco.com/cellulosic-fuels/
