Challenge to Democrats/Leftists: If you believe climate change is an existential crisis, prove it

I don't think anyone says that, except for, people like you, who aren't able to follow the pretty technical discussion of it. Because I doubt you understand it, tell us what you think is the "correct" global average temperature, and why. And tell us why the earth then shouldn't warm. Is the globe only ever supposed to be a tenuous place that is too inhospitable to survive in?

 

How do you leverage something you cause not to exist?

 

Just to be precise what is the source of the chart you are basing your argument on?

 

The chart is cited. Lindzen and Choi. Says so right on the chart.....

 

And the Climate Alarmists see only what they want to see, facts be damned.

Of course there's going to be warming, if you'd managed to read the OP you know that too. The question is: what proof is there that the warming will be an existential crisis?

 

It already is. Floridians are already trying desperately to cope with it. Soon, coastal cities world wide will be. We're living in the midst of a gigantic animal species extinction that rivals some of those noted from past geologic ages. The polar ice caps are melting at a prodigious rate, raising the oceans faster every time the data is reviewed. You accuse the alarmists of seeing only the facts they want to see. How do you explain the deniers' refusal to even look at the evidence from a scientific perspective separate from their personal prejudice on the issue? Isn't the problem here mostly due to the politicization of this issue rather than keeping it scientific?

 

As I said in the OP (to which, apparently you paid no attention attention), when CO2 doubles, temps from the CO2 alone will increase 1 degree C. But that's a process that took 300 years to happen over which the CO2 effects were happening gradually.

Reminds me of the retreating glaciers that are revealing human dwellings and tools. The glaciers weren't there when humans had settlements, so it must have been a lot warmer than it is today. Who's to say what we're encountering now isn't the planet warming naturally, returning to temps that were normal thousands of years ago? Add to that the 1 degree C from doubling CO2 and we'll have a more pleasantly warm planet with fewer people dying in the winter (cold weather being much more deadly to humans than warm).

 

The problem is that politicized climate scientists have poisoned the good will most people give to other fields of science. Since the beginning of the "crisis" there's been the Hockeystick fiasco, Hide the decline, cherry picking of data, and now making sure people who don't agree with the state of the "science" don't find work, and calling skeptics "deniers", and keeping skeptics from appearing on the public airwaves.

Until 2019, climate science assumed the planet had warmed 1 degree C since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Suddenly, we're told it's warmed 2 degrees C!

That's outrageous and it taints the reliability of all the measurements we're getting. If you don't find a way to show it's getting warmer, you'll lose your grants.

 

Just to be precise, are you questioning whether CO2 warms logarithmically? Because source of the chart doesn't matter, I'm just using it to illustrate how CO2's warming diminishes quickly until, after doubling its concentration for 300 years in 2050, it will only have warmed the planet (just the CO2, mind) by 1 degree C.

I've given links for the science, feel free to check them out.

EDIT: To make it easier for those who don't want to read the entire Wikipedia article on climate sensitivity, here's the bit about greenhouse gases warming logarithmically:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Estimating_climate_sensitivity

And a more approachable article:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05...ver-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/

 

mistake

 

I would leverage it to advance science while trying to stop it.

 

All I asked for is your source for the chart. One assumes that a posted chart comes from somewhere. And I must have missed the links for the actual science. Perhaps you remember the post where you listed them.

 

Sorry but you seem unable to actually post the source of your chart or your science. And wiki is not a reliable or definitive source. Looks to me like you are just parroting something you read somewhere and maybe forgot where or are embarrassed to post a link.

Also as you may or may not know CO2 isn’t the only source or the only think that influences global warming.

 

The thing that prevents us from regarding the current warming is how quickly it's happening. You are right that past ages have experienced extensive temperature changes that affected the entire planet, but those changes happened over thousands of years. Our current warming trend began in the 1740s & have been increasing at a faster & faster rate the closer you get to today. All that's in recent human terms--NOT extended geologic terms. MOST of our current change has happened over the past few decades, all within one single human life span. That's very different from past examples, & that ties it to human technological changes inflicted onto the environment by mankind itself.

 

if i throw a rock into the ocean, technically the level rises due to the displaced water...

have you measured land mass worldwide?

how much sand/rocks/earth are eroded by tides? where does it go?

yep, into the oceans, similarly with lava that keeps filling the oceans...

oh, lets not forget all the new humongous ships/oceanliners that displace millions of gallons of ocean waters...

reclaiming land by filling in the oceans/seas/lakes to build cities/airports upon them...

btw, melting icepacks/glaciers is due to pollution (not co2) as well as volcanic activity...

 

I agree with some of your post--especially regarding the political pressures placed on scientists for slanted results from their research. That's appalling. But I also feel the evidence cited by a wide variety of scientists, even from divergent fields of specialty, appear to fall profoundly on the side of rapid global warming caused by humans. I've seen almost nothing I trusted that counters that, though I would be open to it if its honest & not politically driven. The problem is, the Trump administration has sown the seeds of distrust across the width & breadth of any & all establishment agencies--most of which are not deserving of that doubt. But it's certainly had its impact. Even in this post & yours, we don't know who to trust. And trust is crucial. Trump is ruining America by encouraging more mistrust rather than fixing it where found. Trump fixes nothing. He simply divides.

 

Oh so you don't have anything that contradicts me, it's just that you don't like inconvenient truths.

And it's lame to dismiss wikipedia when:

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/

As for the point that other greenhouse gases influence climate, I'm fed up with dealing with clueless points based on people NOT reading my OP. If you won't READ before popping off, I'm not going to respond.

Democrats and Leftists. No wonder they've been repudiated by Real Americans.

 

So you want to live in the past. Got it.

 

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy - go with it.

 

If you want to stop climate change you desire to live in the past.

 

And the Green Lobbyists hate him!

. “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”

 

Feel better now?

 

Irving Harold Stowe was a Yale lawyer, activist, and a founder of Greenpeace.

Dorothy Anne Stowe was an American-born Canadian social activist and environmentalist. She co-founded Greenpeace.

Bunny McDiarmid is an
environmental activist .. Executive Director of Greenpeace

Greenpeace Fund Board Member
Liz Gilchrist is a progressive political activist

Jakada Imani is a spiritually-rooted coach and trainer

Look, I don't want to embarrass you by putting up two pages worth of directors for this Green Lobby group, here's the link go look yourself.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/bio-tags/gpusa-fund-board-member/

^ this is a political lobbying concern, full stop.

I've no wish to mislead you. GP did pick up a bona fide scientist 1 year later on the Phyllis McCormick.

 

I haven't read the debates and arguments here, but as I mentioned earlier in one of my posts, the arguments which would grab my attention the most are those that don't invite non-scientists to engage in scientific debates (which they aren't qualified to do), but those which invite people to review the credentials and biases of those who may be on each side of the fence on the issue of climate change. Within that context, the post by @UprightBiped citing the credentials of Richard Siegmund Lindzen made an impression on me, in light of the quote below it which I assume was from him. Now, in my methodology of things, we have at least one bona fide 'source of emulation' on the issue against the climate change 'consensus' that is emerging, and regardless of the composition of the Green Peace or some other such movement, I like to read about the credentials of some of the actual scientists who could qualify and be considered 'sources of emulation' on the other side of the fence. And then read about, not the weight of the scientific evidence for or against their positions (which only a scientists can properly evaluate), but the weight of arguments as to why one or the other less or more biased, less or more qualified, and/or less or more self-interested in the position he/she is taking.

As an aside, I have no doubt the issue is politicized. That is inevitable whenever an issue, scientific or otherwise, can have wide impacting social, economic and political consequences and repercussions. Recognition of this fact means that we (the non-scientific community) need to be perhaps a bit more cautious and skeptical of whatever is being said in the name of 'science' on either side, but that only adds to our obligation to investigate (not the scientific merit, which to truly investigate would require the same commitment of time, energy and resources that go to train a scientist) the backgrounds and biases of whoever we choose as our 'source of emulation' on the issue.