This is not being disputed by anyone. What the others are trying to explain to you is that the Earth itself is changing because of emissions like CO2 and this is changing the relationship, as you call it, between the Earth and the Sun and how the climate is controlled by that relationship.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
This thread really is a testament to the resilience of some caf posters in trying to argue with a brick wall.
I love you the caf.
I love you the caf.
Yes Mark. And yet the model successfully predicted both the current level of CO2 and the current average global temperature. The model is right.
Why would I read metaphysics, dressed to look like science? Find a paper which shows an effect - equivalent to radiative forcing - shown by experiment or observation - then I'll believe it.
fecking cranks.
Have you ever carried out any experiments in a laboratory with a view to publication?
Mate, it's your citation.
1. He suggests a citation to try to prove a point.
2. Citation is used by others to explain that the said point is wrong.
3. He claims the citation is wrong/poor and others need to get a new citation.
Couldn't make it up
Here's what I don't understand. Given we know there is a greenhouse effect - and we observe it on other planets as well as our own - I'd like to hear one of these denialists explain why dumping gigatonnes of extra greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere SHOULDN'T have an effect. You can argue the details as much as you like over one "theory" vs another, but the infrared absorbing characteristics of CO2 is just physics. So what's offsetting it? Explain that in your alternative theory and you have a Nobel right there.
It's like arguing that adding a thicker duvet to a bed doesn't make you warmer, instead it's moonbeams.
It's like arguing that adding a thicker duvet to a bed doesn't make you warmer, instead it's moonbeams.
Last edited:
Western, IPCC supported, climate models predict nothing. They are wrong. There is a Russian climate model which had better predictive power than all IPCC models. I wonder if that Russian model incorporated solar effects on climate?
Why dont you explain to us what your background is and what makes you qualified to question the science presented to you?
If only there was a method for accurately assessing the epistemological foundations of one claim vs another, eh?
You'll never be able to convince anyone of anything without good data. That's why I stress the importance of experiment and observation. It's why I laugh at believers in climate models.
In his book Trouble with Physics, Lee Smolin explains how the leaders in theoretical physics shunted every second PhD physics student into string theory 'research' for over a decade. With no useful result. There are potentially, 10e+500 permutations of string theories giving unified field hypotheses. Most likely, none of them are right.
How can the human mind model the world accurately without closely grounding itself on reality (experiment and observation)?. We cannot. There are way too many assumptions getting in the way. As soon as we've made our first non-validated assumption we're wrong.
Brilliant. It really is that simple isn't it but let them think that it is all just a conspiracy (with no obvious reason by the way).
They will be the ones who will have to answer to their children or grandchildren why they were so unbelievably stupid.
I seriously doubt there's any climate model not taking the sun into account.
It would not matter that the science behind climate change has convinced all the best minds except of course Trump.
There are always going to be those who pretend that every one else is wrong.
What they believe actually doesn't matter. What does matter is that the vast vast majority do and are pushing for action to be taken.
But we have observations of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and we have observations of an increase in the global mean temperature.
Could you be more specific and tell us exactly which e.g. assumptions and observations you disagree with, or why it's wrong to correlate increasing CO2 levels with an increase in temperature? You're beating around the bush here.
Climate change isn't string theory.
My argument is that the Satellite data destroys Hansen's argument.
And you're wrong about that, as the paper that presents the satellite data shows.
I had already lost so much faith in humanity anyway, but it keeps getting worse. Hopefully he is just a WUM.
You really need to read up on evolution, mate. Christ.
It's quite a feat of Wummery to quote a source to support your argument, brush off the fact that the source disproves your argument, then rubbish the source, and still keep arguing your original position.
he probably doesn't accept evolution either because we haven't seen a chimpanzee evolve from a common ancestor in a laboratory.
I don’t know enough to refute his quoting of physics, but it’s quite obvious he knows feck all about biology when he doesn’t get why a massive swing in climate over a hundred years is far more damaging than a slow, steady increase which allows for a lot more reproductive cycles, which allows for natural selection to do its thing.
Tell you who’s going to be fine, mate. Bacteria!
He probably thinks the PG tips adverts from way back are real
They are real. Those adverts happened.
The Eddy Minimum
Is just about to begin.
During the Little Ice Age, lasting most of the 17th century, earth's climate went askew. It had nothing to do with people burning fossil fuel. Up to a third of earth's population perished in drought, flood, famine and war. All over the world, the most populated regions were devastated. This Little Ice Age is called the 'Maunder minimum' today, after Maunder, the scientist who discovered sunspots almost entirely vanished during it. Today, we enter another period of weak sunspot activity, called the Eddy minimum which may last up to 35 years. Sunspot activity, on the sun's surface, is a proxy for magnetic activity below the surface. The sun orbits the solar-system center-of-gravity once every 22.2 years. It rotates on its axis once ever 24 days. Because it's a big ball of fluid, magnetic systems (below its surface) can align and reinforce, or antagonize; as they move at different speeds. A solar minimum is a long period of antagonistic effects, evidenced by few sunspots.
What exactly is going to happen? I can't say. We don't know for sure what effect these changes will have on the climate, nor how they will be mediated. We do know that a similar, longer, solar minimum devastated the 17th century.
Recommended reading: Global Crisis by Geoffrey Parker
You want to be scared of the climate? This should scare you.
Is just about to begin.
During the Little Ice Age, lasting most of the 17th century, earth's climate went askew. It had nothing to do with people burning fossil fuel. Up to a third of earth's population perished in drought, flood, famine and war. All over the world, the most populated regions were devastated. This Little Ice Age is called the 'Maunder minimum' today, after Maunder, the scientist who discovered sunspots almost entirely vanished during it. Today, we enter another period of weak sunspot activity, called the Eddy minimum which may last up to 35 years. Sunspot activity, on the sun's surface, is a proxy for magnetic activity below the surface. The sun orbits the solar-system center-of-gravity once every 22.2 years. It rotates on its axis once ever 24 days. Because it's a big ball of fluid, magnetic systems (below its surface) can align and reinforce, or antagonize; as they move at different speeds. A solar minimum is a long period of antagonistic effects, evidenced by few sunspots.
What exactly is going to happen? I can't say. We don't know for sure what effect these changes will have on the climate, nor how they will be mediated. We do know that a similar, longer, solar minimum devastated the 17th century.
Recommended reading: Global Crisis by Geoffrey Parker
You want to be scared of the climate? This should scare you.
This rules out CO2 how?
There isn't any CO2 in the sun. It's almost all hydrogen, with a sprinkling of helium.
No seriously. The Little Ice Age was called that because temperatures generally got colder. CO2 is supposed to lead to global warming. That's not to say every year must be colder during a solar minimum. The Great Fire of London, in 1666 was preceded by 4 months of drought with average temperatures elevated 1 C. It was slap bang in the middle of the Maunder minimum.
This is to say that any climate scientist claiming CO2 makes anything colder, anywhere is talking dogshit, according to their own belief system.
But we had extremely natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the 17th century. So the temperature would be dominated by other effects if veering from its natural fluctuations.
Who's saying CO2 cooling anything?
Not unexpected though
A 1-minute google search found 1 paper that said the maximum effect of this minimum would be a 40% reduction in the warming due to CO2. As you indicated, since our CO2 is istorically new, the effect of it is still important despite changing solar activity.
I did. Even gave you three places to look. And pretty generously gave you a rhetorical way out.
To be brutally fair, it was a test of your knowledge to try and suss out if you were worth discussing with.
I'll toss you a few freebies. Look up 'cytokine storm', 'oxytocin production during childbirth', and the blood-clotting process. These are three just from human/mammalian biology.
Giving you ten examples is very very easy.
Point is, the claim that 'positive feedback loops are ridiculously rare in nature' isn't exactly the best way to phrase things.
One that I had to read personally about 5 years ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511703/
Synergistic dual positive feedback loops established by molecular sequestration generate robust bimodal response
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511703/
Synergistic dual positive feedback loops established by molecular sequestration generate robust bimodal response
Ah, but you see, those are written by scientists. Those guys lie. Do you have anything in blog or YouTube-comment-section form?
Yes, I've read that book. While particle physics has definitely run into a brick wall of lack of data to steer the theorists - you can't build solar system sized accelerators to test the edges of the theory unfortunately - that's not the case with climate science. There's a ton of data.
And we have accurate predictions based on a correlation between the two. Occam's razor, end of.
When i said natural world, I din't mean living world. I was thinking more in terms of climate, chemistry, physics, astronomy. Living creatures evolve and genes adapt, and we find all kinds of creature features which one may interpret as positive feedback. Yet all these systems in living creatures interact with other systems which may stop the positive feedback. So it's not unconstrained, it doesn't runaway.
Here is an example from the world of non-life: atomic nuclear fission. By its nature it tends to all go in one direction and stop. Nuclear fission stops when all actinides have fissioned. No more left. No can do positive feedback anymore. That's why positive feedback mechanisms in climate make no sense. What's to stop the runaway? If the runaway can happen it already did.