Why Climates Change

[sounding]

A talk called "Why Climates Change" will be given Friday (Apr 8) at the Lake Miona Recreation Center at 4 PM, for the Philosophy Club, which is open to Villager residents.

[ThirdOfFive]

A talk called "Why Climates Change" will be given Friday (Apr 8) at the Lake Miona Recreation Center at 4 PM, for the Philosophy Club, which is open to Villager residents.
Interesting! I thought that climate change was a science, not a topic for philosophers.

[Ritagoyer]

Our climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There was been ice age, and a tropical age there is nothing we can do to stop the next

[manaboutown]

Our climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There was been ice age, and a tropical age there is nothing we can do to stop the next

Perhaps the talk could be titled "Why NOT climate change"?

[JerryP]

Our climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There was been ice age, and a tropical age there is nothing we can do to stop the next

Yes, but we haven’t been burning fossil fuels since the dawn of time.

[Woodbear]

A big nothing burger when you look at evaluating the Glacial - Interglacial cycles of the last 450,000 years. The Earth has been much warmer during periods of time when humans were not even present.

[Ritagoyer]

Yes, but we haven’t been burning fossil fuels since the dawn of time.
Our air is cleaner now than it was in the 60s. To clean the air up you will need to get China,Russia,India and some of South America to do something about their air quality. When you get that to happen then we can talk.

[Bay Kid]

It is all about the money. If they were so worried they wouldn't be flying their huge jets. They wouldn't allow huge controlled burns.

[Topspinmo]

Yes, but we haven’t been burning fossil fuels since the dawn of time.

On 60 second clock of time humans haven’t even registered yet meaning you can break down millisecond that much….

[Topspinmo]

Our air is cleaner now than it was in the 60s. To clean the air up you will need to get China,Russia,India and some of South America to do something about their air quality. When you get that to happen then we can talk.

Don’t forget Mexico where all polluting companies escape and wind just blows across southwest.

[Topspinmo]

A talk called "Why Climates Change" will be given Friday (Apr 8) at the Lake Miona Recreation Center at 4 PM, for the Philosophy Club, which is open to Villager residents.

Maybe why sun comes up and goes down would be better topic? At least that can be explained over time with no theories of opinions…..

[Davonu]

Accurate cliche…

The one thing constant about climate is change.

[golfing eagles]

Yes, but we haven’t been burning fossil fuels since the dawn of time.

Exactly

[golfing eagles]

A big nothing burger when you look at evaluating the Glacial - Interglacial cycles of the last 450,000 years. The Earth has been much warmer during periods of time when humans were not even present.

Also 100% correct

[golfing eagles]

Our air is cleaner now than it was in the 60s. To clean the air up you will need to get China,Russia,India and some of South America to do something about their air quality. When you get that to happen then we can talk.

That’s nice. What does it have to do with climate change?

[Stu from NYC]

That’s nice. What does it have to do with climate change?

We can do all kinds of things to be better stewards of our environment and mitigate our carbon footprint but way to many other countries are not doing much to help. I think you will understand now.

[mtdjed]

We can do all kinds of things to be better stewards of our environment and mitigate our carbon footprint but way to many other countries are not doing much to help. I think you will understand now.

Remember the days when LA was covered by a yellow smog, Pittsburgh a smoky haze as did numerous other US cities. Thanks to a massive program to reduce contaminants, these cities and others have helped clean up the air. So what has happened to temperatures? They have gone up according to the "stewards" . So if that happened here, and we encourage, help other countries do the same, what results might we expect? I am not a scientist, but my thoughts would suggest some more warming. Why? Perhaps clearer skies allow more heat absorption. Less reflection of the Sun's rays.

An example of global temperature impact by air pollution is the 1883 explosion of Krakatau volcano in what is now Indonesia. Not a huge Volcano in height but an extremely large emission of airborne pollutants. Reportedly impacted global temperature by about 1 degree F for 5 years.

The earth has undergone glacial and interglacial cycles forever. Some suggest every 100,000 years, Mostly glacial 90000 years vs 10000 years interglacial. We are interglacial now. Perhaps the cause is something out of our control. Like tilt of the earth? Higher tilt, higher temperatures. Something out of human control. Some say Milankovitch cycles. Beyond me.

So, some speculate that global warming is not caused by use of fossil fuels. You should not assume that we all understand and agree with your stewardship comment.
Lots of theories and unanswered questions.

Not saying clean air is bad for our health, but not a sure case to claim that we will solve global warning by improving carbon footprint.

[sounding]

India announced they are re-opening 100 coal mines, plus China continues to build new coal plants. Both understand climate science, and that CO2 is not a problem.

[MartinSE]

Imagine, 99% of the world's scientists are just in a big conspiracy to milk money from your pockets. Of course, they are. Who else could possibly have a horse in this race?

[golfing eagles]

Imagine, 99% of the world's scientists are just in a big conspiracy to milk money from your pockets. Of course, they are. Who else could possibly have a horse in this race?

It's not "99%"

It's 90+% of those that are dependent on government grants, a government that has set their agenda.

So who really has a horse in this race?

[sounding]

Please provide source data for the 99% value.

[retiredguy123]

Climate change is a global topic, not a United States topic. But, if you take away all of the research studies and articles done by US scientists and US companies and universities, what research would you have left? I think it's mostly about getting money from the US Government.

[sounding]

Ditto. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) did a member survey in 2016. Results show that 67% believe climate change is mostly human-caused -- but -- only 53% of members responded. Since responses where not secret and since most members directly or indirectly work for government (such as academic government funding), many did not respond. Personal contact with some National Weather Service members confirms this.

[sounding]

True. It is easy to get grants to study man-made climate change, but not natural climate change.

[Stu from NYC]

India announced they are re-opening 100 coal mines, plus China continues to build new coal plants. Both understand climate science, and that CO2 is not a problem.

Or perhaps they do not care. China is rather incredibly polluted where water must be filtered to be safe to drink.

[sounding]

CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is invisible, odorless, and tasteless. Pollution (such as trash mountains) can be seen, smelled, and I hear don't taste very good.

[Bill14564]

CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is invisible, odorless, and tasteless. Pollution (such as trash mountains) can be seen, smelled, and I hear don't taste very good.

That's a pretty narrow definition of pollution. A better definition of pollutant would consider detrimental effects.

[Bill14564]

India announced they are re-opening 100 coal mines, plus China continues to build new coal plants. Both understand climate science, and that CO2 is not a problem.

India and China are your measure of good science and decision making???

I don't know how those countries feel about CO2 in particular but they have a very poor track record on environmental issues. I'm sure there was no consideration given to climate change and pollution when they made the decision to increase coal consumption.

[MartinSE]

Please provide source data for the 99% value.

[URL="https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed."

[biker1]

There is no 99% or even 97%. That number gets tossed around from a much criticized paper by John Cook, IIRC. The question being asked is not what you think and the manipulation of the numbers to achieve the oft quoted percentage is laughable. Those who break out that number are typically clueless. Human activities have been altering the climate for a long time. You need to look no further than the urban heat island effect. There are, however, two actually important questions to ask: How much of recent temperature increases are anthropogenic and are we facing a dire situation in the future? The answer to both questions is "we don't know". Increasing CO2 does yield temperature increases because it changes the radiative transfer balance in the atmosphere. By itself, however, this is not enough to create the catastrophic effects that some claim are just around the corner. There would need to be positive feedbacks in the atmospheric/oceanic system from CO2 related temperature increases in order to create a dire situation. These are the types of climate dynamics that are not well understood and therefore difficult to numerically model. The catastrophic predictions for the future are based on numerical modeling. This is still an area of research. We are about 12,000 years into an interglacial period and temperature and sea levels can be expected to continue to rise. Anthropogenic warming is likely to be a positive perturbation on this trend.

Full disclosure: I am a retired research meteorologist who developed numerical atmospheric models for NASA and the National Weather Service.

Imagine, 99% of the world's scientists are just in a big conspiracy to milk money from your pockets. Of course, they are. Who else could possibly have a horse in this race?

[MartinSE]

India and China are your measure of good science and decision making???

I don't know how those countries feel about CO2 in particular but they have a very poor track record on environmental issues. I'm sure there was no consideration given to climate change and pollution when they made the decision to increase coal consumption.

They increased coal production for the same reason we did, to reduce the cost of industrial development. That justification, which we also did, is changing almost daily with solar now close to or less expensive than fossil fuels in many locations. Wind power is also becoming competitive.

[MartinSE]

Please provide source data for the 99% value.

Sorry, my bad, I meant peer-review papers written by people who actually work in that field that tries to understand the long-term climate as opposed to people whose career to trying to predict tomorrow's weather.

[URL="https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed."

[sounding]

Yes, they know and understand climate science -- CO2 is not a pollutant. They, like NASA, also know that CO2 is plant food and is helping to green the earth -- and more CO2 would be beneficial.

[MartinSE]

Ditto. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) did a member survey in 2016. Results show that 67% believe climate change is mostly human-caused -- but -- only 53% of members responded. Since responses where not secret and since most members directly or indirectly work for government (such as academic government funding), many did not respond. Personal contact with some National Weather Service members confirms this.

This is from their website. Keep in mind that personal opinions are not peer-reviewed.

Climate Intervention - American Meteorological Society (https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-intervention/)

"Adopted by the AMS Council on 2 February 2022
It is now well established that global average surface temperatures are increasing, and the associated changes in climate are causing ecological and societal disruptions. Further, there is overwhelming evidence that climate change in recent decades is caused by human activities. Greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, have already contributed and will continue to contribute to widespread climate changes, with major negative consequences for most humans and ecosystems. "

[Topspinmo]

There is no 99% or even 97%. That number gets tossed around from a much criticized paper by John Cook, IIRC. The question being asked is not what you think and the manipulation of the numbers to achieve the oft quoted percentage is laughable. Those who break out that number are typically clueless. Human activities have been altering the climate for a long time. You need to look no further than the urban heat island effect. There are, however, two actually important questions to ask: How much of recent temperature increases are anthropogenic and are we facing a dire situation in the future? The answer to both questions is "we don't know". Increasing CO2 does yield temperature increases because it changes the radiative transfer balance in the atmosphere. By itself, however, this is not enough to create the catastrophic effects that some claim are just around the corner. There would need to be positive feedbacks in the atmospheric/oceanic system from CO2 related temperature increases in order to create a dire situation. These are the types of climate dynamics that are not well understood and therefore difficult to numerically model. The catastrophic predictions for the future are based on numerical modeling. This is still an area of research. We are about 12,000 years into an interglacial period and temperature and sea levels can be expected to continue to rise. Anthropogenic warming is likely to be a positive perturbation on this trend.

Full disclosure: I am a retired research meteorologist who developed numerical atmospheric models for NASA and the National Weather Service.


Or deforestation of the flyover states for plantation of corn and soybeans. :shocked:

[sounding]

It is competitive -- but only on windy days -- but not on very cold days as some of their produced energy is needed to heat the turbines oils, etc.

[MartinSE]

Remember the days when LA was covered by a yellow smog, Pittsburgh a smoky haze as did numerous other US cities. Thanks to a massive program to reduce contaminants, these cities and others have helped clean up the air. So what has happened to temperatures? They have gone up according to the "stewards" . So if that happened here, and we encourage, help other countries do the same, what results might we expect? I am not a scientist, but my thoughts would suggest some more warming. Why? Perhaps clearer skies allow more heat absorption. Less reflection of the Sun's rays.

An example of global temperature impact by air pollution is the 1883 explosion of Krakatau volcano in what is now Indonesia. Not a huge Volcano in height but an extremely large emission of airborne pollutants. Reportedly impacted global temperature by about 1 degree F for 5 years.

The earth has undergone glacial and interglacial cycles forever. Some suggest every 100,000 years, Mostly glacial 90000 years vs 10000 years interglacial. We are interglacial now. Perhaps the cause is something out of our control. Like tilt of the earth? Higher tilt, higher temperatures. Something out of human control. Some say Milankovitch cycles. Beyond me.

So, some speculate that global warming is not caused by use of fossil fuels. You should not assume that we all understand and agree with your stewardship comment.
Lots of theories and unanswered questions.

Not saying clean air is bad for our health, but not a sure case to claim that we will solve global warning by improving carbon footprint.

As with so many posts on here, the last sentence implies that anyone is suggesting a silver bullet.

The people that have spent their lives studying climate have said (99.9% of peer-reviewed papers) that human actions are contributing to climate change. It is also commonly agreed by them that we have passed the "tipping point" meaning the climate will continue to change at ever-increasing rates (positive feedback).

What they do say, is that it is too late to "solve" the problem, at this point the best we can do is help reduce the rate of change - reduce the problem. And reducing the carbon footprint is just one of many recommendations. Saying reducing carbon won't solve the problem is an over simplification of the recommendations being made.

[mtdjed]

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

That shows that whoever created these scientific papers are clueless to a 99.9% certainty. That would imply that climate change has only occurred since humans were around and more specifically since they began using fossil fuels to a great extent.

Statements like this are the reason why there is widespread disbelief in "these government trolls and politicians" trying to institute their beliefs as fact.

[sounding]

The problem is there is no proof humans cause climate change -- only pollution. The science world is full of sky-is-falling rhetoric throughout history -- just like the next ice age scare in the 70s.

[biker1]

Yes, absolutely. There are a lot of examples of anthropogenic changes. We should try to tread lightly when we can. Fortunately, the atmospheric/oceanic system has negative feedbacks. A very simple example of a negative feedback would be if the atmosphere warmed then it could hold more water vapor which could result in more clouds but the clouds would reflect more sunlight, but the clouds can also radiate more long wave radiation back to earth. These are the sorts of things that are numerically modeled. It is very non-linear. The difference between the atmosphere warming and cooling is a difference of a few watts per square meter in the radiation budget and the solar constant is about 1300 watts per square meter. We are essentially looking at the small difference between two large numbers which is why the modeling is difficult and still an area of research.

Or deforestation of the flyover states for plantation of corn and soybeans. :shocked:

[sounding]

Our climate is wonderful. Golfing, cruising, beaching, pickle-balling, swimming, surfing, sailing, fishing, sunning, etc, etc, etc. Also wonderful is all those movie stars and politicians with beachfront properties who really enjoy our wonderful climate. They know a good thing when they see it.

[sounding]

Correct. Increasing CO2, in addition to very tiny (non-tangible) warming effects, is also cooling the earth. 1. It is cooling the upper air faster than we ever thought possible. 2. A warmer earth means the atmosphere's ability to make clouds increases, which mostly help to reflect sunlight and thus cause cooling. 3. Increasing CO2 enables plants to grow with less need for water, which is why deserts are unexpectedly greening -- and more plants means a cooler earth surface.

[MartinSE]

It is competitive -- but only on windy days -- but not on very cold days as some of their produced energy is needed to heat the turbines oils, etc.

So the argument commonly used, if it isn't perfect it doesn't work.

We will never get off fossil fuels if we don't start. All over the world alternative energy production is proving to be viable. Here it is an uphill war. A way with know side effects - like climate change. I notice you ignore my link to the people YOU referenced, where they state clearly that climate change is real and climate change is aggravated by human activity.

Defintion of pollution: "Pollution is the introduction of harmful materials into the environment. These harmful materials are called pollutants. Pollutants can be natural, such as volcanic ash. They can also be created by human activity, such as trash or runoff produced by factories. Pollutants damage the quality of air, water, and land."

Please note that the definition does not exclude the possibility to a positive effect. It is anything introduced into an environment that causes harmful effects. So CO2 IS pollution. It's climate heating effect (harmful levels cause harmful heating) is KNOWN and PROVEN.

[sounding]

The smart countries, like China and India, are not only increasing fossil fuels use, but also increasing nuclear energies. This is partially due to the last 6 years -- which a shows a slight global cooling trend. CO2 is obviously underperforming.

[Two Bills]

Our air is cleaner now than it was in the 60s. To clean the air up you will need to get China,Russia,India and some of South America to do something about their air quality. When you get that to happen then we can talk.

Yet the USA is still the second biggest emitter of CO2 behind China.
Air must have been bad back in 60's.

"I loved the smell of lead in the mornings"!:icon_wink:

[sounding]

Higher CO2 levels in China and India enable both countries to become greener faster ... China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management | Nature Sustainability (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7) . Dang -- I love CO2.

[JoelJohnson]

It's too late to really fix it. The best we could do is to slow it down a bit.

[sounding]

That 97% study was done by John Cook in 2013. This was when global temperatures stopped rising -- and the alarmists needed more fuel for the fire. So the Univ. of Queensland in Australia hired John who was a work-at-home Dad as a web programmer and cartoonist (which was stated on his Skeptical Science webpage). He was given 12 students (some not in the science field) to review 11,944 abstracts to see which supported man-made climate change. Reviewing just the "abstracts" is not sufficient to gain insight into an article -- you also need to read the Conclusions -- which they did not. After the 97% finding was published, many authors objected to the findings. For example, one author, Richard Tol, said 5 out of his 10 reviewed papers were incorrectly rated, and 4 of 5 were rated as endorsed human-caused warming rather than neutral. Other scientists soon demanded to see how the study was performed, but the University refused -- until someone found all the data on an unsecured server. It revealed management "mischief" at multiple levels. Several independent (peer-reviewed) analyses were done on the same data -- where they found that only 0.5% of the articles actually stated that humans were responsible for most warming. John Cook now spends time with his new website -- Cranky Uncle.

[mtdjed]

Do you have a degree in Climatology? Have you worked in the field?

I have not, so when I make a statement of "fact" I reference people that DO it for a living. I am not stating my opinion as fact, I am stating experts in the field being discussed positions.

You seem to just state things as fact with no backup, so I ask again are you a climatologist? Are you stating facts based on your own experience and training? If not, could you provide links or references to back up your claims?

But your facts are those that you choose. There are other facts that you ignore. So your statements are simply opinions just like the rest of us on this forum.

I go back to your statement of facts by so called experts that say that all climate change is caused by humans. That fact is simply false. That is not a logical basis to start a discussion or to dismiss others statements.

[sounding]

And, Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman, said ... "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

[MartinSE]

But your facts are those that you choose. There are other facts that you ignore. So your statements are simply opinions just like the rest of us on this forum.

I go back to your statement of facts by so called experts that say that all climate change is caused by humans. That fact is simply false. That is not a logical basis to start a discussion or to dismiss others statements.

First you completely misstated my position. I post what the majority of people in the field say. Not a simple majority but 99%. I defer to them, theirs is NOT opinion, they are peer reviewed and confirmed.

Then you built a straw man to argue with saying "all climate change is caused by humans" neither I or ANYONE I quote has ever said that. So, FACT you claim has been said is not true.

And finally people postings statements as FACTs without providing any basis is NOT a basis for any form of discussion. I asked for references to support the claims, none have been forth coming.

[MartinSE]

It's too late to really fix it. The best we could do is to slow it down a bit.

Sadly yes, we are past the tipping point. What we can try to do n ow is to slow it down long enough to come up with a plan to fix it. Sadly there are no proposed plans at this point that aren't potential worse than climate change if they are not understood or get out of hand.

[MartinSE]

That 97% study was done by John Cook in 2013. This was when global temperatures stopped rising -- and the alarmists needed more fuel for the fire. So the Univ. of Queensland in Australia hired John who was a work-at-home Dad as a web programmer and cartoonist (which was stated on his Skeptical Science webpage). He was given 12 students (some not in the science field) to review 11,944 abstracts to see which supported man-made climate change. Reviewing just the "abstracts" is not sufficient to gain insight into an article -- you also need to read the Conclusions -- which they did not. After the 97% finding was published, many authors objected to the findings. For example, one author, Richard Tol, said 5 out of his 10 reviewed papers were incorrectly rated, and 4 of 5 were rated as endorsed human-caused warming rather than neutral. Other scientists soon demanded to see how the study was performed, but the University refused -- until someone found all the data on an unsecured server. It revealed management "mischief" at multiple levels. Several independent (peer-reviewed) analyses were done on the same data -- where they found that only 0.5% of the articles actually stated that humans were responsible for most warming. John Cook now spends time with his new website -- Cranky Uncle.

So, you still have not provided anything to support your position, only arguments to refute the experts. And you refute the experts in climatology by pointing out a study by a computer programmer. That lacks any significance.

[sounding]

The entire man-made climate narrative is built upon the climate models -- which have failed for the last 30 years -- except the Russian model which admits CO2 is not a climate driver -- which is why the news will not report this fact. Also, none of the models are worth a penny since none of them can actually replicate past climate changes -- such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Additionally, the IPCC said, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible." Bottom line -- there is no climate emergency -- just climate alarmism.

[biker1]

How disingenuous of you to exclude most of the paragraph and then take it out of context. Here is the actual, complete paragraph.

“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.”

The important issue in many (most) areas of science is developing a probability distribution since exact (deterministic) outcomes are often impossible to predict. If you were a scientist you might understand this.

To the Moderators: This thread should be closed since nothing intelligent is being said anymore.


The entire man-made climate narrative is built upon the climate models -- which have failed for the last 30 years -- except the Russian model which admits CO2 is not a climate driver -- which is why the news will not report this fact. Also, none of the models are worth a penny since none of them can actually replicate past climate changes -- such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Additionally, the IPCC said, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible." Bottom line -- there is no climate emergency -- just climate alarmism.

[golfing eagles]

Sadly yes, we are past the tipping point. What we can try to do n ow is to slow it down long enough to come up with a plan to fix it. Sadly there are no proposed plans at this point that aren't potential worse than climate change if they are not understood or get out of hand.

Past the tipping point of WHAT???? Climate change??? If that is the premise, it is completely false since climate change has nothing to do with human activity.

Rather than giving a long and complicated lecture of paleoclimatology and the coefficients of relative absorption of radiant energy by various matrices, let me make this very, very simple:

25,000 years ago New York City was covered by 2 miles of ice. It was cold. Now the port of NY is at sea level. It is warmer. The climate changed. In 1859 when Drake discovered oil in Pennsylvania, it was about the same as today---no 2 miles of ice, much warmer than 25,000 years ago. When the industrial revolution started burning coal in the late 18th century, it was the same. Without any fossil fuel being burnt for heat or electricity, without any SUVs or jet aircraft, the period of glaciation ended and "global warming" melted the ice packs and glaciers. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY. Simple, huh?

Now for the real joke of the myth of "climate change". In about 15,000 years when NYC is under 200 feet of water (the maximum high temp of the interglacial thaw), the "global alarmists will probably crow that they were "right" What a joke!. Of course 50,000 years after that when NYC is again covered in 2 mile of ice, maybe they will figure out that they've been had----had by the government, had by the media, and had by the "ecowarriors"

However, the part that is not a joke is that these same clowns want to spend 100 TRILLION dollars over the next 40 or 50 years to "fight" this.

[mtdjed]

First you completely misstated my position. I post what the majority of people in the field say. Not a simple majority but 99%. I defer to them, theirs is NOT opinion, they are peer reviewed and confirmed.

Then you built a straw man to argue with saying "all climate change is caused by humans" neither I or ANYONE I quote has ever said that. So, FACT you claim has been said is not true.

And finally people postings statements as FACTs without providing any basis is NOT a basis for any form of discussion. I asked for references to support the claims, none have been forth coming.

FACT-Your stated quote

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies."

Climate change has been happening since time began and your stated fact is that above "mainly caused by humans". If you want to argue with "all" vs mainly, have at it.

It still is not a valid fact. You ignore history of significant climate changes as reconstructed by other scientists. Climate changes occur naturally. Things can affect climate change such as volcanos, asteroids, solar cycles, earth tilt. Have humans affected climate change? Yes, by creating cities that become heat sinks, cutting down forests, draining lakes, and possible pollutants. But clearing pollutants from the air may also affect climate change. Clearing the air from pollution such as smog, while being good for our health, may have the effect of contributing to a higher temperature.

If you refer to the chart displayed of the planetary cycle of glacial and interglacial periods, we are currently well within the norms of what has happened in the past, despite the fact that there are humans now. When you consider that a mere 12,000 years ago the Great Lakes and Niagara Falls were just being formed by a climate change much larger than a rise in temperature noted recently.

If you premised your discussion to the last 40 years, which by some studies indicates a global temperature rise of somewhere near 2 degrees F, your stated claim of impact on climate change by humans starts to have some validity.

Then, you can perhaps cite some studies that evaluate how human activities could affect rises and drops in average temperature. But be careful to note that there are certain human activities that lower temps and some that raise temps.
I don't have any facts but do have observations. The air appears cleaner now than it was in the 60's and 70's most likely due to human efforts limit smog and smoke. The temp rise of about 2 degrees seems to have occurred coincident with that improvement. Major efforts were made to install smoke scrubbers, catalytic converters etc.
Perhaps some of that clean air may have assisted some of the noted raise in temp.

[MartinSE]

FACT-Your stated quote

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies..

Thank you for proving my point, you said, ALL I said the scientist believe MOST.

Reading comprehension is hard.

The rest of you post provide no links, or references to support it, as you said yourself you don’t know, you think, but can’t seem to support why you have that opinion.

Sorry, I do not, accept the opinions of random people posting on the internet over establish scientific community.

[MartinSE]

To the Moderators: This thread should be closed since nothing intelligent is being said anymore.

Lol, so you disagree so everyone else is wrong… and we wouldn’t want unintelligent people posting. LOL. The irony is almost overwhelming.

Let’s censor the unintelligent….

[mtdjed]

Thank you for proving my point, you said, ALL I said the scientist believe MOST.

Reading comprehension is hard.

The rest of you post provide no links, or references to support it, as you said yourself you don’t know, you think, but can’t seem to support why you have that opinion.

Sorry, I do not, accept the opinions of random people posting on the internet over establish scientific community.

Why refute the experts on climate change who can't get anyone to agree with them on the statement that humans have been "mostly" "mainly" responsible for climate change since time began? No definition of time is allowed. Just everything said by the experts is irreputable and any response or opinion of random people is unacceptable.

I guess I must now blame the last Glacial Period on our ancestors who discovered fire by rubbing sticks together. Well maybe I should give them credit. I hate the cold. That is why I moved to Florida.

[MartinSE]

Why refute the experts on climate change who can't get anyone to agree with them on the statement that humans have been "mostly" "mainly" responsible for climate change since time began? No definition of time is allowed. Just everything said by the experts is irreputable and any response or opinion of random people is unacceptable.

I guess I must now blame the last Glacial Period on our ancestors who discovered fire by rubbing sticks together. Well maybe I should give them credit. I hate the cold. That is why I moved to Florida.

"Who can't get anyone to agree with them. I think I will leave that comment to speak for itself.

The most of the civilized world agree with them. But, I think this conversation is over since it never got started. Have fun, I hope you are right for everyones sake, but I will still take my advice from experts and not some random rant on the internet.

[sounding]

You bet. Those climate models all, all of them over-forecast temperatures for over 30 years. Over 30 years -- and all wrong. Except, the Russian model, which acknowledges CO2 is not a climate driver. It's amazing how foolish the people are to buy a corrupt product and then agree to change life-styles based on 30 years of bad results. Buyer beware. China and India are laughing their butts off watching us fall for corrupt climate models. The founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said this about man-made climate change ... "It is a scam."

[MartinSE]

You bet. Those climate models all, all of them over-forecast temperatures for over 30 years. Over 30 years -- and all wrong. Except, the Russian model, which acknowledges CO2 is not a climate driver. It's amazing how foolish the people are to buy a corrupt product and then agree to change life-styles based on 30 years of bad results. Buyer beware. China and India are laughing their butts off watching us fall for corrupt climate models. The founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said this about man-made climate change ... "It is a scam."

John Coleman had a degree in Journalism, not climatology. He read a script to tell people if it was going to rain or not.

I will take the advice of people that have studied for decades in the field of climatology over those that studied journalism

But, thank you for referencing a source. It helps to understand why you believe what you believe.

[sounding]

Censorship is a tool of tyranny. This is why we have the 1st Amendment.

[MartinSE]

Censorship is a tool of tyranny. This is why we have the 1st Amendment.

Who are you speaking to? I have never seriously suggested censoring anyone - someone else here has several times recommended censoring.

I strongly support your right to post anything you want to and pretty much any way you want to. I can also strongly disagree with you and what you say. That is free speech.

The "other person" seems to feel they are smarter than others here and so should be allowed to squelch their free speech.

[sounding]

It's not who -- it's all about the data -- that's what science is all about. When you look at the verification data for all the (over 100) climate models, they all run too hot (except the one Russian model). If the IPCC and their models department were selling a product, they would have failed long ago -- about 30 years ago -- but the media never tells you the models are failures. However, brains behind the failing models tried to white wash their failings by giving the creator of the worst climate model the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics. That's like giving the gold medal to the last person to finish a race. The entire man-made climate-change narrative is corrupt. The data does not support the theory. In reality, Russian should have received the Nobel Prize -- but then that would have very embarrassing to the IPCC.

[Two Bills]

All I know about climate change, is I like the warmth, and that none of the protagonists on this thread will know the winning theory!:)

[sounding]

Bingo. And that's why I moved to Florida from up north -- it's getting too cold up there. It's good to remember that humans are tropical in nature -- because we were born without fur. We prefer heat over cold. Remove our clothes and shelters -- and watch where we migrate to.

[MartinSE]

It's not who -- it's all about the data -- that's what science is all about. When you look at the verification data for all the (over 100) climate models, they all run too hot (except the one Russian model). If the IPCC and their models department were selling a product, they would have failed long ago -- about 30 years ago -- but the media never tells you the models are failures. However, brains behind the failing models tried to white wash their failings by giving the creator of the worst climate model the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics. That's like giving the gold medal to the last person to finish a race. The entire man-made climate-change narrative is corrupt. The data does not support the theory. In reality, Russian should have received the Nobel Prize -- but then that would have very embarrassing to the IPCC.


You are interpreting data. Personally, I am not competent to compete with the analysis of the experts when interpreting climatology data. And most of the world and most of the experts (by a wide margin) agree with the current conclusion that it is man-made, it is past the tipping point and it is going to get worse.

Please provide ANY reference to accredited sources that say "the entire man-made climate-change narrative" is corrupt. You seem very sure, so I assume you can provide that link or at least a named reference.