No, how can one argue that moar co2 = more warming then over 18 years when moar co2 doesn't = moar warming, still conclude that co2 is the doomsday compound we were all told it was?
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, but it accounts for 20% of the overall effect and it's one we would ALL benefit from producing less.
Let's pretend for a minute that human made co2 is the #1 cause of climate change. What's a tangible solution?
Incoming laundry list of utopian ideas, I hope you're ready.
That's the other half of it. Even if we follow all the liberal initiatives the predicted temp (and we know how accurate those have been) impact is what, a tenth of a degree over a century? How would anyone ever quantify that? Why isn't that part of the conversation, or does it just not matter because communism/liberalism can do no wrong.
No, dumping record amounts of co2 is suppose to make the world hotter, thats what all the models have said (and failed to validate) since I've been alive.
Unless you were born in 1997, you're wrong.
No, how can one argue that moar co2 = more warming then over 18 years when moar co2 doesn't = moar warming, still conclude that co2 is the doomsday compound we were all told it was?
I'm not a chemist or climatologist. I just look at the data and agree the planet has changed rapidly and for the worse. I defer further judgments to people with expertise like an adult, instead of slamming doors and stomping my feet like a child.
So that's really the issue here. What's a better source of energy that has a less negative impact on the environment than what we have now?
Until then it's better to tax and over regulate current industries and pass on the costs to average citizen while the alarmists profit from their doomsday propaganda. Let's also make sure oil/coal/fracking companies make huge profits too to balance it out.
One thing i never hear about in climate change and its the biggy, the sun. The sun has more to do with our climate change than any other cause. People never discuss the fact that the sun works in cycles at present solar activity has peaked and is starting to produce less energy now and that will cause. A cooling effect. Also what is never mentioned is the orbit around our sun, people think the orbit is static but it isn't, it is dynamic. Distance change of less than a million miles plus or minus will cause the earth to either cool or heat up. These are just many of the things that cause climate change.
One thing i never hear about in climate change and its the biggy, the sun. The sun has more to do with our climate change than any other cause. People never discuss the fact that the sun works in cycles at present solar activity has peaked and is starting to produce less energy now and that will cause. A cooling effect. Also what is never mentioned is the orbit around our sun, people think the orbit is static but it isn't, it is dynamic. Distance change of less than a million miles plus or minus will cause the earth to either cool or heat up. These are just many of the things that cause climate change.
I defer further judgments to people with expertise like an adult, instead of slamming doors and stomping my feet like a child.
I wish I could defer judgments to people with expertise while at work. But then I wouldn't notice how wrong they often are.
If you're trying to pose that climate scientists are less competent than career managers, you've got a hard sell.
All of my coworkers (and most of my superiors) are scientists. To be fair, though, none of them have to go through the horrors of having to publish things.
I defer further judgments to people with expertise like an adult, instead of slamming doors and stomping my feet like a child.
I wish I could defer judgments to people with expertise while at work. But then I wouldn't notice how wrong they often are.
If you're trying to pose that climate scientists are less competent than career managers, you've got a hard sell.
All of my coworkers (and most of my superiors) are scientists. To be fair, though, none of them have to go through the horrors of having to publish things.
Climate science DOES have to be published, and peer reviewed, and tested, and refined, and retested, etc. Someone doesn't just assume it's all there and ring a bell to inform everyone like you guys are portraying it does.
Um, ok, you're a statistician? Really? Because you're acting Nausi-level ignorant here. The models have managed to stay accurate within their described limits. I've linked several times to evidence supporting this. You and the other denier-- oh, skeptics, have not linked a single thing to refute this. Hell, you haven't even linked a single anything.
You know how this works. Well, in theory you should. Models are incomplete descriptions of natural phenomenon. Always incomplete and never 100% accurate because it's near impossible to account for literally everything. When new information is obtained, a model is updated. Only people looking to justify their ignorant talking points would see this as nefarious plotting instead of what it is - the typical scientific process.
I've asked you several times for complete data sets so that I could analyze them myself, and every time you've sent me on wild goose chases into websites that didn't give me squat. I basically implied that the models needed work, you agreed, and you still manage to try and insult my intelligence with arguments that have little to do with what I've actually said. I'm glad your peanut gallery thinks you're scoring points, though.
So your sticking point is a near unattainable standard. Convenient. Means you never get to argue anything substantive yet still have something to fall back on. You know very well I do not have access to raw data nor is it widely available. Hell, I still have no idea what data you would actually want. The closest you could come would be emailing corresponding authors. Still, I've linked several more in-depth pieces compared to the one in the OP and have received zero feedback on the actual science. Saying that models need work is like saying water is wet. Top shelf observation.
The fact of the matter is that no one on the other side of the argument actually wants to discuss science. If they did, we'd see more than posts whose content amounts to little more than "nuh-uh". It's fine, of course, since not everyone has the desire to do so, but the annoyance sets in when the notably ignorant bat their "facts" around as if there's any understanding behind them at all.
I think the big problem with climate changers is that they have been believing it for so long and followed the leaders they dont want to see the truth that they may have been misled by the al gores of tbe world who have become extremely wealthy because of it. Better to live a lie than except the truth.
One thing i never hear about in climate change and its the biggy, the sun. The sun has more to do with our climate change than any other cause. People never discuss the fact that the sun works in cycles at present solar activity has peaked and is starting to produce less energy now and that will cause. A cooling effect. Also what is never mentioned is the orbit around our sun, people think the orbit is static but it isn't, it is dynamic. Distance change of less than a million miles plus or minus will cause the earth to either cool or heat up. These are just many of the things that cause climate change.
People don't discuss it because solar radiation is being constantly monitored and the minute changes in solar output can't account for the excess energy accumulated in our atmosphere. It's one of the few climate variables that's easily accounted for.
So your sticking point is a near unattainable standard. Convenient. Means you never get to argue anything substantive yet still have something to fall back on. You know very well I do not have access to raw data nor is it widely available. The closest you could come would be emailing corresponding authors. Still, I've linked several more in-depth pieces compared to the one in the OP and have received zero feedback on the actual science. Saying that models need work is like saying water is wet. Top shelf observation.
Is there a good reason why the data isn't widely available? Maybe I'm in an unusual position, but typically when I ask for data, I get it. You can sit there and tell me all day long about your procedures and processes and techniques and tell me how accurate it all is, but the actual evidence is found in analyzing collected data. Everything else may look good on paper, but it's superficial.
A very extensive report, known as the National Climate Assessment, was released earlier this week. Nothing in the report is particularly surprising, but its presentation for the general public, here, is incredibly impressive. (Not all government website releases are a disaster!)
If hardcore technical reports aren't your thing, the highlights portion of the site breaks each section down as plainly as possible, is extensively cited, and makes no secret the level of uncertainty inherent in current findings. The site is really quite fantastic, and I would encourage anyone with genuine interest, skepticism, and/or curiosity in U.S. climate change to fuck around in it for a while. (Of course, if well-substantiated, easily digestible scientific communications aren't your thing, there's always this.)
Perhaps, the most poignant message arising from the report is summarized in this quote from the article:
Quote:
The report pointed out that while the country as a whole still had no comprehensive climate legislation, many states and cities had begun to take steps to limit emissions and to adapt to climatic changes that can no longer be avoided. But the report found that these efforts were inadequate.
I don't really consider myself a policy person so... what do?
Edit: Also of note is the high diversity of those involved. Largely scientists, of course, but representative of a wide swath of interests, including some oil companies.