The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

It's actually fairly simple.

The Earth has a sight...wobble in it's Solar Orbit and over time the Earth either is tilted so that either less or more sunlight will shine upon the Northern Hemisphere.

When we are in that pat of the cycle where LESS sunlight is shone in the North....we get an Ice Age....MORE....ice melt.

This is why Ice Ages effect the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE....not the Southern.

It's all Celestial Mechanics.

AA

 

It's so simple that no one knows the actual trigger to change states.

 

What??

The TRIGGER....is the point when too much fresh water from ice melt exists in the oceans and stalls the heat exchange currents.

Warm Salt Water will travel North and stall with Cooler Not so salty water.

This stalls the current and without a heat exchange we get an ice age very quickly.

AA

 

Here...this is all about such a shut down.

LINK...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

AA

 

I gave you the answer up thread before you launched into nuclear fusion. The concept of the heat of fusion is basic.

Still waiting for quantification on the sea level increase data.

 

I posted about at the same time thus I did not see it.

It was my mistake.

I quickly read and saw Fusion and thought you might be like many members here who have no clue as far as chemistry and physics.

AA

 

That is an hypothesis, not a fact. There are other hypothesis.

- - - Updated - - -

Even your wiki source mentions opposing hypothesis.

 

I know I'm smarter. You call CO2 a greenhouse gas and there is no such a thing except a house to grow plants. Look at the structure and learn how it works and then you'll learn something. CO2 doesn't keep a greenhouse warm. OMG.

Plants release carbon was your schtick not mine. Carbon Pumps was your term. It's obvious you didn't know that plants produce oxygen. funny.

- - - Updated - - -

nope............

 

show us a photo of such a shoreline you speak of. Let's see it bubba.

 

which islands? Hawaii and it's islands are all intact. Which ones you referring to. Post a link to validate your statement.

 

You are smarter and I never thought to look or read a book on how a greenhouse works or even how to build one. I also never studied grade school science or understood that the earth would under freezing worldwide without a greenhouse effect. You sir, are smarter than all of science and everyone that studies it. You know better... they can't fool you. But since you are smarter ..would you please explain in detail how science has gotten it so wrong? How these natural cycles work and where in these natural cycles we are and what I can expect in the future? Please be specific. Just to say it is a natural cycle is not enough. I need details. I look to you and your superior intellect. Thank you in advance. I await your very informed opinion.

 

it's called MONEY!!!!!!

 

What money? Where specifically does this money come from? Please be specific. How can money make the earth hotter?

 

A very prescient comment. Chemistry teachers are always claiming that the "melting point of ice" as well as the "freezing point of water" are both 32 degrees F. This absurd claim means that if you put a block of ice in a refrigerator at 32.000 degrees, alongside a pot of water, the ice will melt while the water freezes. This is nonsense of course. Ice melts above 32 and water freezes below 32. Both phases can coexist indefinitely along any point of the line in the water/ice phase diagram. See also "triple point of water", where steam, water, and ice can exist indefinitely together.

 

Tax money, given to falsefy records and show fear and doomsday scare tactics to 90% of the people who don't know any better. I've asked and never received any evidence. Trillions of dollars into Climate and no one can say how hot 20PPM of CO2 is. Or how it changes jet streams to make meaner nastier storms. That are now on a decline. OOps. Money, it makes the world go round. you should look it up on the thingy called the internet. Gore invented it you know.

 

Climate change is now a 1.5 trillion a year business. Money talks.

 

Links? Proof? It still doesn't tell me anything about why climate skeptics are right and why the other side is wrong. Where's the beef???

 

I'm also a chemical engineer. BSChE - Michigan Tech 1971, MSMechE:Thermal Systems - Cal Berkeley 1974.

 

The "beef" is in the real world data. The "mystery meat" is in the GCM predictions of climate sensitivity of CO2 ranging from ~ 2 to 4.5 deg C (the IPCC lowering to 1.5 deg C is based on experts who have looked at the "beef" (real world data)). I'll ask again - if the science is settled then why the range of predictions ??

 

And I ask you if the science isn't settled how to you know you are on the right side? If ...as you say...the science isn't settled then you are just guessing.

 

As far as money being made
The fossil fuel industry makes much more than climate science and I am not against industry....are you?

 

I'm not saying the science is settled - that's the meme of the left including the climate scientist in chief, Barrack Obama. I'm on the side of the beef - real world data free from manipulation. The best way to forecast the future climate (short term - 10 to 20 years out) is to extrapolate the actual data and take appropriate actions but no adverse economic data without justification based on trajectory. To attempt to forecast global climate resulting from a chaotic global climate system using general circulation models is ridiculous.

 

The scientist that was instrumental in discovering the problem with CFCs says any prediction further out than 5 to 10 years is folly.

 

I agree with that. I've read similar things from multiple sources. The most accurate predictions come from extrapolation of real world data.

 

when you have nothing else like evidence, slamming the fossil fuel industry seems like a good discussion point eh? I see you, you don't drive, use air condition, heat your home, refrigerate your food and drink. Wow, you must live in a cave.