Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

The lib scientists learned to move their dire predictions far into the future

But the future never arrives

 

Sort of like a parent informing a child that if he continues to play with matches he may burn down the house... or telling your child not to take drugs because he may become an addict, and he may become less capable of doing his school work, and may ruin his life

There are certain behaviors that are known to increase the likelihood of a bad outcome. No one can say for sure what the bad outcome would be, when it will arrive, or how bad the outcome will actually be.

Fwiw, children usually respond to such warnings by telling their parents there is no problem because they have everything under control. Blah blah blah

 

Sounds nothing like those actually because we have had ample time to study those.

We know for a fact Matches start fires, as we've created and tested those matches for years and years.

We know for a fact that drugs do cause addiction from having plenty of specimens on hand to study.


Global Warming however? LOL.

We have one planet...only one to look at. We have no controls to compare to. Our timeline is so short as a species that even what we consider to be a long period of time...is simply an eye blink in the scale that planets are believed to exist on.

We really are not at a level of understanding for this subject and may not be for hundreds of years to come. Certainly not while we are landlocked on one planet and cannot base a comparison of normal from observing others...

We have no idea what is and what is not normal for a Planet like ours as far as fluctuations in climate go. Just mans arrogance to claim they've got it figured out.

And flat out embarrassing that some cannot see this for themselves and raise the same questions on the "experts" .

 

We actually have 3. Both Venus and Mars have large concentrations of CO2 in their atmosphere. You already know Venus's surface is baking like an oven at a temperature higher than that of Mercury despite Mercury being closer to the Sun. Also, Venus's stratosphere is cooler than than here on Earth despite it being closer to the Earth. That's another effect of CO2. Then on Mars it's temperature at 6mb (the average surface pressure) is warmer than the temperature at 6mb here on Earth despite Mars being further from the Sun. We also have thousands of experiments dating back to 1860 definitively show that CO2's EM spectrum behavior makes it a greenhouse gas.

We do have a control. We have the preindustrial Earth to compare the present to.

You couldn't be more wrong. If this is really what you think then you have been putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "la...la...la...la" repeatedly and ignoring what's going on in pretty much all disciplines of science.

There is no normal. Climate scientists don't claim there is. That's your strawman to do with however you like. Just don't pretend like climate scientists built it up.

Let me guess. You're smarter than they are right?

 

Sort of like a parent informing a child that if he continues to play with matches he may burn down the house... or telling your child not to take drugs because he may become an addict, and he may become less capable of doing his school work, and may ruin his life

There are certain behaviors that are known to increase the likelihood of a bad outcome. No one can say for sure what the bad outcome would be, when it will arrive, or how bad the outcome will actually be.

 

No, you don't have 3...you have 0. Venus and Mars are different than our planet. You have no planets like ours to watch and compare.

And how far back are you going? Afterall, there were times with 0 Mankind that dwarfed todays temps indicating that natural occurances are in play...that we do not fully understand.

Not at all. It is people like you who are dishonestly lumping together science that we can and do know from our expertise...with that which we can't and do not know because of a lack of said expertise.

if there is no normal, then there is no deviation and no problem.

If they don't question what they are told routinely and just accept it because an "expert" told them something...then yes, I am.

 

So what physical mechanism makes CO2 warm Venus and Mars, but not Earth. How are they so different that we can't use them as equivalences?

It's not the actual temperature that's the problem. It's the change in temperature. This puts pressure on adaptability. The faster the change the more pressure is put on biological life to adapt.

 

AGW doctrine says the life forms are causing and adding to it. How much is life adding to it on Venus and Mars for instance?

To claim the speed of change is a problem makes one wonder what the normal speed of change should be....but as we know, and you have already stated...there is no normal. (We don't know what the speed should be, but it passes the money around better to pretend we do know and that we are moving way too fast because of Human Activity)
So, there doesn't appear to be any problem.

Without having and knowing a baseline norm, you cannot observe a problem. That is true in all matters....temperature norms...speed of change...etc.

A problem only occurs as something contrary or outside an established norm. until you know the norms of Planetary Climates...you can't legitimately claim something is wrong with ours and it's Mans fault.

This is just Mans greed and arrogance steering the masses.

 

See Post #280.

 

He referenced Mars and Venus to illustrate the basic science of greenhouse gases and the atmosphere.

Human (indeed life) influence is unique to Earth. But we know that humans are the reason for the recent increase in CO2 because we can measure and compare the isotopes of the CO2.

We do know the normal rate of change. The ice core data shows that the last time that the CO2 concentration rose 80 points (the amount it rose from 1900 to 2000), it took approximately 9,000 years.

And yes, we do know the "normal" because we know the temperature range during which humans and much of the currently existing plants and animals evolved. We would like to keep the temperature and CO2 concentration within that range as much as possible.

 

Those wildfires are due to voting for Clinton. Ken Storey said it's karma.

Funny thing about the icebergs melting is that they're growing record ice at the same time, lol.

 

So, if we accept Darwinian exceptionalism, doesn't this become moot?

 

You can measure and compare all the isotopes you like. The record that we have of this planet shows times with much higher C02 than we have now, and there were no Humans. Indicates there are natural mechanisms at play that we don't fully understand.

And how do you know that was the norm and not an outlier? You have more than just this to compare with right? This sounds like , you took one persons temp and now know that 100 degrees is normal for the human body.

What if a Volcano decides otherwise?

 

I always get a kick out of the whole "Man's fault" meme especially when, in the case of CA wildfires, man is so integrally responsible for them. Simply ask, why are all those non native grasses, clearing, housing in areas surrounded by fire danger even allowed? Oh, yeah. Because code, policy, neglect, all of those things aided in creating the basic problem.

We worry that fires, or mud slides effect the population in so adverse ways, and always forget that it was men, themselves who put themselves directly into harms way in the first place. Then, they ignore that complicity, and shake their liberal fists mightily in the air and curse at the moon because it cannot be their fault...

 

Yes... but is the conclusion that unless a situation is as well studied as matches... then we can say nothing. For example, let’s take fish stocks. We do not have long term data about that. All we know is that we do a lot of fishing, and fish stocks go Down. This might be natural variation..., so presumably we should ignore what could be unsustainable over fishing....

I think these data is pretty clear that the globe is warming,

Which logically seems to indicate that even if the hysterical warmists are correct in identifying a severe problem.... still we could never address the problem because we have no controls to compare to.... so we must forever and always ignore problems fro which there are no controls?

It seems to me that there are lots of equally obscure scientific problems... some guy figured out the Higgs boson before the cern collider found that particle. Einstein came up with all sorts of insights before those ideas could be proved. AND IF einstein had not suggested these ideas even without proof... then other scientists would likely not have looked to test those ideas... and eventually prove them. It seems to me fairly common for scientists to develop hypothesis that are not proven at the time the hypothesis is proposed

No idea? None? Can you prove that?
It is one thing to say we do not have complete knowledge... it is another to say we have NO KNOWLEDGE... like we have learned nothing over the last 5000 years?

As we observe human behavior patterns... it is common for ordinary people to criticise experts... for example the people who assert that the experts are fools in asserting that the earth is round when it is obviously flat.

But, by in large, most often the experts are right much more consistently than ordinary people who call them fools

 

Interesting misuse of an example. Perhaps some rewording is in order. Given the comparative value, it would read this way. CO2 is a scarce atmospheric component that literally provides the life blood to our ecosystems. Removing more and more CO2 starves the atmosphere and the ecosystem and it's compositional status in the matrix is diminished causing more and more starvation of the ecosystem.... So, we don't have long term data about that. All we know is starving the atmosphere from CO2 is bad for the ecosystem, and this may be natural, so presumably, we should ignore what could be unsustainable over regulation of CO2.....

 

Love to.

Unfortunately the most commonly proposed 'solution' seems to be 'tax my carbon.'

How do I "get out" of that?

 

The "data" is pretty obvious with fishing isn't it? You take form the pot, the stock dwindles.

And the data we have access to has shown much higher warming without human activity has it not? Have you identified and eliminated those causes already from what we think we see now?

Hypothesis are fine. they're great....but you'll need more than that to convince the World that it has to drain it's treasures fighting the hypothesis. No one is charging us for Gravity and Evolution, so no one is balking at those.

Didn't you yourself tell me that there is no normal just a post or two ago?

Don't recall mentioning anything about Flat Earth, sorry that you ran out of talking points and resort to that line of attack.

 

Perhaps certification as an illegal alien?? Protected minority status?? With liberals and their ability to manufacture artificial identity politics, who knows...

 

Pay the appropriate price for your carbon.

 

I'm not sure what the mechanism is other than mother nature taking her course. I can tell you that buried beneath all that ice in Antarctica are thousands of trees and other shrubs and plants and lakes that were there before the big Ice Age hit us 2.6 million years ago. I'd imagine there are plenty of undiscovered prehistoric animals buried under that ice and preserved exactly the same too. I know they've drilled and found things in the underground lakes.

 

Natural Causes of climate chance include: Orbital Mechanics, Volcanoes, Meteor Strikes, Solar Intensity, Greenhouse gas concentrations, deforestation. We can and do study all of those causes. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations are the cause of the current climate change. Humans are the cause of the increased concentration in CO2 concentration. We can't stop volcanoes or change solar intensity or stop a meteor strike, but why should we stop attempting to prevent climate change that is the direct result of our actions merely because that prevention could be undone by something that is absolutely outside of our realm of control?

As for CO2 used to be higher, that's correct. But you know what didn't exist during that time period when the CO2 was much higher? Humans and many of the currently existing plants and animals.

And seriously, stop using analogies. Your are terrible. You legitimately just tried to compared hundreds of thousands of years of proxy data, using multiple methods of collection and multiple sources, to taking the temperature of a single person.

 

I'm tired of your troll posts Thirty6. Welcome to ignore.

 

So, every time you exhale, who are you sending your check to?

 

You do not know, and cannot prove that.

Because our actions in the form of C02 have not proven to be causing anything.

Right, so they didn't cause it then, but somehow Man IS causing it now. Of course other forms of life did exist and thrive in it, as could we being so adaptable.

Yes I did. It's a demonstration of norms. If you did not know that the human body is completely normal when it fluctuates from 98.6 degrees....you'd claim the guy with 99.6 was sick and seek to cure him. That's what you are doing with the planet now.