Nature has a history of publishing known to be faulty and utter bull shit articles,...which confirms its "peer review" process,...I still get a chuckle when I read that,...is usless and biased.Untrue.
Not sure where your NASA link is in this thread, but found 2 NASA articles on CO2, and neither says CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change or global warming. CO2 does seem to be the main gas, among the many gasses we are releasing in the atmosphere, they are watching and concerned about.It's not what people can latch on too, but what an overwhelming number of scientists believe (including NASA from that link I provided). Not saying there aren't other factors, but that one seems to be key.
As to cloud cover, is there more now than before, or is that a general observation from time immemorial?
Even if burning fossil fuels is not the main culprit, and I am not agreeing that it is not, does that change the fact that it is a culprit and it is something which is within our power to change. This common tactic by climate change deniers in looking for other contributors, does not change the facts or the science. When will pole wake up and realize that public opinion is being manipulated in large by coal industry money. Wake up and smell the future of our grandchildren being sold.Not sure where your NASA link is in this thread, but found 2 NASA articles on CO2, and neither says CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change or global warming. CO2 does seem to be the main gas, among the many gasses we are releasing in the atmosphere, they are watching and concerned about.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas...
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/pia18934
Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests.
Thought that article was interesting. Not only is the burning of the forests releasing vast amounts of CO2, but there will be fewer trees to absorb the CO2 in the future. Don't know if changing the landscape in such a major way will affect the climate. Can't really point fingers at the them and say stop burning the forests when we have cleared our forests.
For cloud cover, don't know if there is more or less now, just that very small changes in cloud cover have a noticeable impact on temperature.
If it turns out increased CO2 levels cause global temperatures to increase, we're screwed.
Dead wrong.The links you provided confirmed AGW.
This I agree with, although I would change the last part to the fact that it is likely a culpritEven if burning fossil fuels is not the main culprit, and I am not agreeing that it is not, does that change the fact that it is a culprit
Not without significant changes to our developed economies and not without choking off growth in developing countries. And that is very unlikely to occur. And there is no way in hell you will get one without the otherand it is something which is within our power to change.
You should refrain from using "deniers" as it implies people either agree with you or they are opposed and are in denial. In the real world there are likely a great many people who are truly concerned Climate Change may be cause by man, yet are sceptical of tree hugging self proclaimed experts who are ABSOLUTE on this issueThis common tactic by climate change deniers in looking for other contributors, does not change the facts or the science.
Peabody coal just recently went bankrupt. Not that much money in coal presently. While the US industry no doubt has a lobby group, they have not manipulated public opinion.When will pole wake up and realize that public opinion is being manipulated in large by coal industry money.
I agree that inaction may well result in a world which may become a nightmare for future generations, but do not try to make out like a set of robber barons are the culpritsWake up and smell the future of our grandchildren being sold.
Can you say with absolute 100% certainty that any of these events have never occurred before in the 4-5 Billion year history of the planet?49 * C. today in Arizona....Lake Ontario at highest levels ....wildfires in Portugal. No, nothing happening here!
Whatever you are trying to justify, the Church and the scientific community (in Europe was often one and the same) knew that the world was round and even knew the approximate radius.well if you do not known, then you do not know, do you?[
Are you kidding?
It was more likely that anyone who took the time "to get educated" as you say would have faced a pretty serious dilemma, as such talk may not have been approved of by the Church.
This was the late 1400's
And again you are trying to pretend that hoping evidence comes along is the same thing as actual evidence. The actual evidence supports human CO2 as a major factor in current climactic change. It is possible in the future that they may see some contradictory evidence but it is just as likely that the evidence will continue to support the conclusion of the scientific community.The possibility exists it may be a contributing factor, however without quantifying the impact of other possible causes , such as variability in the earths orbit or variability in the suns radiation, you can not state it is a major factor with a high degree of confidence.
Other than he is well outside his area of specialty, well past his prime research days, and contradicted by most of the scientific community?He won his Nobel prize in 1973.
How is that at all relevant when reviewing his views on any scientific matter?...
And here you straight out argue against science. Science is about conclusions based on the best evidence available. At this point you have to admit that you join KDouglas in believing that science is really a conspiracy or at least admit that your reference to scientific method is just a pretense to justify your deeply held bias.Arguing for a scientific conclusion is because it is the one which is currently popular is not even laughable. That is just downright sad, particularly if you wish to use it to cultivate change in peoples behaviours
I never mentioned waiting for a future explanation
I offered several viable explanations which could also possibly be significant contributors to changes in climate
Is your conviction so strong that you just dismiss those out of hand?
if so how in the world can you speak of scientific method?
Says the guy who quotes papers that disagree with him. The paper still sees human CO2 as the major factor.You completely missed the point. ....
I guess it's never been 49C in Arizona before. And I guess Portugal has never experienced forest fires in the past either. Or that almost all fires are set by humans, intentionally or unintentionally. But hey doesn't fit the narrative of the climate change bogeyman eh?49 * C. today in Arizona....Lake Ontario at highest levels ....wildfires in Portugal. No, nothing happening here!
Keep denying the facts BC, history will ultimately prove you wrong. Do yourself a favor and click the link I provided, you might learn a thing or two.Ah, the conspiracy theory again.
The papers agree with me that the computer models miscalculated the impact of water vapour feedback and that the predictions about man-made warming were completely wrong.Says the guy who quotes papers that disagree with him. The paper still sees human CO2 as the major factor.
Not to mention the complete reversals that are done when the situation is the opposite of what was predicted, such as the "permanent" drought predictions in Australia that were soon followed by record rainfall and flooding.I guess it's never been 49C in Arizona before. And I guess Portugal has never experienced forest fires in the past either. Or that almost all fires are set by humans, intentionally or unintentionally. But hey doesn't fit the narrative of the climate change bogeyman eh?
http://business.financialpost.com/o...ming/wcm/bb83f67e-5a96-42a4-9e49-8a8fb0296df2And so it goes with climate science. All the bases are covered. If we get hot or cold, wet or dry, floods or droughts, if there are more hurricanes or fewer hurricanes, it can all be pinned on carbon emissions and climate change.
NASA,..."Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests."Not sure where your NASA link is in this thread, but found 2 NASA articles on CO2, and neither says CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change or global warming. CO2 does seem to be the main gas, among the many gasses we are releasing in the atmosphere, they are watching and concerned about.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas...
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/pia18934
Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests.
Thought that article was interesting. Not only is the burning of the forests releasing vast amounts of CO2, but there will be fewer trees to absorb the CO2 in the future. Don't know if changing the landscape in such a major way will affect the climate. Can't really point fingers at the them and say stop burning the forests when we have cleared our forests.
For cloud cover, don't know if there is more or less now, just that very small changes in cloud cover have a noticeable impact on temperature.
If it turns out increased CO2 levels cause global temperatures to increase, we're screwed.
With ridiculous leaps of logic like that I'm not surprised you are anti-science.The papers agree with me that the computer models miscalculated the impact of water vapour feedback and that the predictions about man-made warming were completely wrong.
That means there is no evidence of any man-made warming. ....
?? Had one tried to speak of evolution in 15th century Spain, one would have been burnt at the stake.Whatever you are trying to justify, the Church and the scientific community (in Europe was often one and the same) knew that the world was round and even knew the approximate radius.
Absolutely notAnd again you are trying to pretend that hoping evidence comes along is the same thing as actual evidence.
Only if you dismiss unquantified alternative theories.The actual evidence supports human CO2 as a major factor in current climactic change.
That may very well be true, however until you can scientifically dismiss the multiple null hypothesis, your conclusion remains unproven.It is possible in the future that they may see some contradictory evidence but it is just as likely that the evidence will continue to support the conclusion of the scientific community.
Other than he is well outside his area of specialty, well past his prime research days, and contradicted by most of the scientific community?
Is a mind which is capable of advancing quantum physics, not qualified to examine the science of climate change?Area of specialty??
I doubt there is a shelf life on Intellectual capabilities, particularity for a geniuswell past his prime research days ??
Science is not be a popularity contestcontradicted by most of the scientific community???
Conclusions based on the best evidence available are not absoluteAnd here you straight out argue against science. Science is about conclusions based on the best evidence available. At this point you have to admit that you join KDouglas in believing that science is really a conspiracy or at least admit that your reference to scientific method is just a pretense to justify your deeply held bias.
Those who are anti science are folks like you who buy into this AGW crap and in turn support the politicization of science and the bastardization of the scientific method.With ridiculous leaps of logic like that I'm not surprised you are anti-science.
In case you've forgotten, you have spent the past few years insisting the AGW models got it right.With ridiculous leaps of logic like that I'm not surprised you are anti-science.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531841&viewfull=1#post5531841The observed data fits well within the projections the graph shows yet you still try to pretend it is "spectacularly wrong".
I could try to explain to you that scientists project trends, not predict specific temperatures at a specific time, and all of the observed data fits well within the predicted trend. I could explain but you don't care and will just move on to another excuse.