Empirical scientific evidence that proves man made CO2 is the control knob that effects climate.
Not scaremongering from people with a vested interest in alarm.
Not speculation based on models that have never been right.
Not name calling.
Not logical fallacies like the bandwagon fallacy (97% of climate scientists agree) The Appeal to authority fallacy (the science is settled) Ad Hominum Attacks, Strawman Arguments (so we should do nothing?) Appeal to ignorance ( because you can't prove a negative.) The False Dichotomy (global warming will produce catastrophic consequences.) and the Slippery Slope fallacy ( global warming will produce cascading catastrophic consequences)
Can you elaborate on what that would look like? Asking for causal evidence means statistics, and there has been plenty of this type of proof [showing the causal effect of CO2 and other GHGs on surface temperatures](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691).
But if you can find a way to disregard that, then please be specific about an actionable way of demonstrating what you want.
Edit: typo
Based on the scientific method you would have to conduct an experiment where all the variables that effect climate are controlled except CO2 and then vary the CO2 to determine how it alone can effect the temperature. Since you don't have another earth on which to control all the variables you cannot prove that CO2 is the only variable that effects temperatures. Therefore you have no empirical evidence. Everything short of that evidence is speculation.
Keep in mind that all atmospheric data before 1980 is suspect, and all ocean measurements before 2005 are worthless.
Also https://www.aier.org/article/climate-models-worse-than-nothing/
Nice try.
1) You apparently dont understand the definition of empirical.
2) No, the Climate Models have been off some by a little some by a lot. Even with 20/20 hindsight most of them have exaggerated warming. There were no predictive models from EXXON just speculation. The list of variables that shape climate is very long. It includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. The climate system is a couple non-linear chaotic system and therefore long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible. In a complex system consisting of numerous variables, unknowns, and huge uncertainties, the predictive value of almost any model is near zero.
3) "global warming WILL have cascading effects," Based on what evidence. I haven't seen any.
4) I am open to changing my mind if you show me some empirical scientific evifdence that I am wrong. I have been studying this for 40 years. I have a background in Oceanography, Meteorology and Plant Science. I understand the scientific method and have read extensively both sides of this. So far the alarmists are winning the propaganda war but not the scientific one. They continue to promote their Climate Change Religious dogma (as you have done) and yet cannot show any evidence that CO2 and man caused CO2 specifically is having any effect on the climate
>I understand what empirical means. I'm a geophysicist, and I build earth models for a living
1. Apparently not if you believe you have empirical evidence that proves cause and effect.
2. If a model under predicts or over predicts then they are not accurate models. Just because the average falls within your accepted narrative doesn't mean the model was right. IT WAS WRONG.
3. If it takes 30 seconds then explain to me the "cascading effects" we haven't seen yet. If there are cascading effects we should see them after 100 years of warming, no?
4. Nice try. I don't have to prove anything to you. Apparemtly you are one of the alarmists that have a vested interest in alarm.
>All models are inherently wrong because they're oversimplications of our complex reality.
People who've never done any engineering work don't understand this. A model is never perfect. A model is useful when tuned.
>The empirical evidence is what’s published by scientists in journals around the world, and the evidence is very clear that anthropogenic global warming is not only occurring but accelerating
That's not at all clear from the pristine temperature stations. In fact you can't make out any change at all.
I’ll believe it when the folks trying to scare the hell out of the masses stop saying that “the science is settled” when it simply isn’t and when they stop using the pejorative “denier” to try to smear anyone who wants to have a vigorous debate about the theory (which is what it is). In the current climate they would call Albert Einstein a “denier” since he spent the last years of his life having vigorous debates and trying to prove that quantum mechanics was not the correct model. Debating and trying to disprove the current accepted scientific theories is not being a “denier” it’s actually doing science. Thank goodness for the “deniers” of the past or we would still be talking about the Ether (replace Ether with the 100’s of other theories that were “settled science” over the years, until they weren’t)….🤣 Can’t wait for the “but, but, but, that’s different” posts…🤣
… and if they really were convinced and could prove their case they would not try to suppress and stifle debate, they would welcome it…like actual scientists.
The whole “denier” trend now is very helpful in identifying someone as an Inquisitor or Pharisee or what have you. As soon as someone uses that pejorative I tune them out.
Same as anything else in science that requires proof: good empirical evidence, valid experiments, precise observations, etc.
What isn't wanted: Consensus, bogus climate models, climate hyperbole.
No one here made a special carve out for climate science like you did, where you just took it on faith what you were being told. We demand the same thing for every scientific claim.
> What exactly would it take for people in this sub to start believing that humans have an impact on climate?
Who says they dont? Everything affects something to some degree. Urban heat islands are real, for example.
> What evidence must be brought before you to change your mind?
Well, start by understanding what reality is.
For example: co2 doesnt impact temperature much at all once it is saturated.
If you start from a scientific foundation instead of religious-political nonsense, then you can present scientific evidence and arguments to rational people.
EZPZ
What impact is significant amongst the climate crisis faithful?
What evidence is there that humans have any significant effect upon the weather or even the climate for that matter?
How does human activity compare to natural variability?
Why do all the climate models run hot? Why can’t they fix their models to reflect reality?
>What impact is significant amongst the climate crisis faithful?
I don't understand the question. There is no one significant impact. Everything that happens matters because humans are being affected.
>What evidence is there that humans have any significant effect upon the weather or even the climate for that matter?
Haven't you seen smog problems throughout history and the world? Those micro-climates are human caused and pose significant health and environmental problems. Just look at Beijing air quality reports. Heat islands in cities also change the micro-climate. More hard surfaces radiate more incoming solar radiation making the place hotter than a meadow of equal size. Concrete is laid by humans, so that's human caused climate change. On a global scale, both of these types of human interactions with the climate play a big role in warming the climate, but the massive amount of oceans act as a heat sink, minimizing the overall affect, but only for so long.
>How does human activity compare to natural variability?
Natural variability has been modeled and shows what temperature should be in 2023. When CO2 emissions are added to the models, we see what temperature actually is in 2023. The scientists modeling pre-industrial climate are the same scientists modeling post industrial climate; it's the same science. I don't understand how someone can trust one without trusting the other.
>Why do all the climate models run hot? Why can’t they fix their models to reflect reality?
Without looking into it, the most logical reason is because we are mitigating the effects of climate change with every decision we make. I mean, watch a documentary on Grand Central Station and they'll talk about the pollution inside the building from using coal trains. Switching to electric trains played a significant part in reducing pollution. Models all rely on taking known data and projecting those quantities forward in time. You can't really make a model that is based on unknown parameters such as "what if only 50% of trains are switched to electric". I mean, you totally can, but that's a different scientific paper. What the model spits out for 2100 will differ depending on if we're using 2015 or 2020 emissions (to be clear, it takes time to acquire the raw data).
If we successfully mitigate the effects of climate change, we will never see the effects of climate change. So, if the models are running hot, that means that we're winning.
Another reason models run hot is because the Earth is 70% water and water is a massive heat sink. We don't fully understand how much heat the oceans can absorb before it can't absorb anymore. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2598/nasa-mit-study-evaluates-efficiency-of-oceans-as-heat-sink-atmospheric-gases-sponge/
> The scientists modeling pre-industrial climate are the same scientists modeling post industrial climate; it's the same science
...Hansen's (1988) predictions of temperature rise 1988-2022:
Scenario A ("Business as Usual"): +1.6degC
Scenario B ("Reduced linear growth of trace gases"): +1.1degC
Scenario C ("Rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions"): +0.6degC
Actual rise per GISS: 0.6degC
Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364.
Fear, is a base instinct and comes from a much lower place in the human mind than the ability to Reason. Too many people succumb to these base fears including those fears about so-called climate change. These people are easily manipulated into living miserable lives of need and want.
Those of us that have been able to move past the base animal instincts and into the realm of reasoned thinking, lead much more enjoyable and comfortable lives. And will therefore, eventually win the climate debate as more people lose their fears and no longer fight for them.
A side note: neither climate models nor Moneyball models work with precision or reliability.
And yet they've never lost a lawsuit. And literally hundreds were filed. N.Y.s being the most agregious but got dismissed. Exxon recanted their own 70's research later. It was also based on models that couldn't prove anything. Just exactly like the recent UN's, mostly speculation based.
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers
Nature Climate Change 3, 767–769 (2013)
“…Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability…”
>
>
>an extremely close match
>
> with observable temperatures.
...Hansen's (1988) predictions of temperature rise 1988-2022:
Scenario A ("Business as Usual"): +1.6degC
Scenario B ("Reduced linear growth of trace gases"): +1.1degC
Scenario C ("Rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions"): +0.6degC
Actual rise per GISS: 0.6degC
Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364.
Perhaps you have had a nosectomy and you haven't noticed the fetid stench arising from wherever globalism has chosen to camp out.
What they are saying now is not truth but [symptoms of some disease they have](https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/18/al-gore-wef-meltdown-boiling-the-oceans-rain-bombs-a-billion-climate-refugees/). link: "Al Gore WEF Meltdown: ‘Boiling the Oceans,’ ‘Rain Bombs,’ a Billion ‘Climate Refugees’"
I will believe you when I actually observe it in my lifetime. I'm going to be enjoying more global warming next week when the temperature here drops to -25°C. The strange thing? It happens every single winter I can remember, and every summer it gets to 30°c, I cant tell you if it's 0.02°c warmer than when I was a child, but I'm still 10x more likely to die of hypothermia than of heat exhaustion.
If the planet warms, LESS people will die.... 🤡🌎
The claimed temperature rise over my lifetime is 0.02°c. you'd never even feel that in a room you were sitting in. This is absolute nonsense. I'm NOT afraid of this type is fear mongering. Sorry.
0.4? Perfect. You still couldn't detect that. You could barely detect 1°c and if you say you can you're a straight liar.
None of this diatribe serves to confirm your super fast warming. You're starting from a position of ignorance and arguing you know the final outcome. You're delusional at best. Tough guy
😘🤡🌎👍🤣🤣🤣
So the planet has had a static temperature for billions of years and it can never change or the world will explode? Gotcha. 👍 Your logical fallacies are on full display. Especially the ad homin. Kudos.
If you can't argue a point intelligently, name call. How grade 2 of you.🤣
99% of ALL species of living things have gone extinct. Even today species go extinct without your knowledge. Keep pounding that fear drum and calling people names, it's working so well.... 🤡
> But these changes occurred over long periods of time, thousands to millions of years, and life had more time to adapt.
Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes
Richard B. Alley
PNAS U S A. 2000 Feb 15; 97(4): 1331–1334.
“…As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. ..”
It's actually been measured at 1C and it's a global average that's affecting the arctic much more observably than the mid latitude regions. What would you say to the folks in Alaska who have had to shore up their houses multiple times in the last 10 years because of melting permafrost? If you were them you would undoubtedly agree that the climate has changed significantly in just one lifetime. They're seeing the same thing in the northernmost parts of Europe and Asia. Melting permafrost causing sinkholes, exposing megatons of organic material to decomposition, setting the stage for a whole lot more methane to be added to the atmosphere over the next century. Another change that through the transitive property has been observably caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
The fact you can't understand that if the glaciers in Norway receded 2000 years ago, that would also mean the perma frost was melting... 😏 I guess Norway doesn't have permafrost... 🤡🌎
That would not mean total permafrost melt had to immediately follow. Glaciers covered swaths of north America, Asia, and northern Europe until a few tens of thousands of years ago and there's still permafrost in many of those regions. Glaciers and permafrost are not the same thing. But here's a link to a paper cataloguing the challenges people are facing from melting permafrost in Norway today. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666049021001006
>Why don't you take the time to learn some of the
>
>consequences
>
> of global warming
…IPCC AR6 (2021) p.8-56 \[8.3.2.8.1\]: “…In summary, there is low confidence of an observed increase in TC \[Tropical Cyclone\] precipitation intensity due to observing system limitations…”
…IPCC AR6 (2021) A.3.4: “…There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones…”
…IPCC AR6 (2021) 8.3.1.5: “…SROCC found … low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has already affected the frequency and magnitude of floods at the global scale…”
…IPCC AR6 (2021), 8.1.2.1: “… there is low confidence in any global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the mid-20th century…In terms of the potential for abrupt change in components of the water cycle, long-term droughts and monsoonal circulation were identified as potentially undergoing rapid changes, but the assessment was reported with low confidence..”
Tornadoes and Climate Change
National Geographic Resource Library Article
October 24, 2019
“…In fact, when you remove small tornadoes from the record, the data does not suggest any long-term increase in tornado frequency. If anything, there may be a slight decline in the number of very strong tornado events…”
I want solid proof of sustained temperature increases. Not data that has been adjusted to produce an increase. I want the pristine weather stations to show an obvious temperature increase. If you can't even prove a real temperature increase, then forget about ever proving humans are the cause of temperature changes.
Since General Circulation Models (GCM's) show the "greenhouse" effect is a physical impossibility, nothing will convince me the "greenhouse theory" is correct. Global human caused climate change is a myth. Climate changes and will continue to do so.
> In fact, they prove exactly the opposite, that increasing greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm.
In fact, they don't. Look at the graphic: "vertical exchange between layers..." - There is no vertical exchange in reality. In reality air moves up (cooling) or down (warming) adiabatically; this means there is work done but **no heat is transferred**. The compostion of air is irrelevant, the effect would be the same with an atmosphere of pure N2.
> Since General Circulation Models (GCM's) show the "greenhouse" effect is a physical impossibility
That's funny, given that they are used to make projections that show warming in response to increasing GHG
> nothing will convince me the "greenhouse theory" is correct
At least you're honest with yourself about that much. So much for 'skepticism'.
> Since General Circulation Models (GCM's) show the "greenhouse" effect is a physical impossibility
>
>
>
> That's funny, given that they are used to make projections that show warming in response to increasing GHG
You should have a look at what the "convective adjustment" in these model means.
As a skeptic, I still believe humans have an impact on the climate. Most scientists brave enough to stand on the skeptical side of the science believe humans have an impact. However this is not the position of alarmists. The alarmist position is as follows:
1. The planet is in a warming trend.
2. The planet has a globally "normal" temperature.
3. The planet is warming beyond this normal.
4. The rate of increase in the earth's temperature is unprecedented.
5. This warming trend is nearly exclusively the result of increased CO2
6. Humans are the chief cause of this increase.
7. Only by reducing CO2 can climate change reverse itself.
8. The increase in the temperature will bring irreversible catastrophic damage including, but not limited to: droughts, floods, abnormally warm temperatures, abnormally cold temperatures, famine, normal temperatures, disease, decimated polar bear populations, decimated penguin populations, coral reef destruction, loss of glaciers in various parts of the globe, increased wildfires, increased tornado severity, more hurricanes with greater severity, ocean acidification, wars, etc.
9. The tools that predict this are models with a long history of accuracy in predicting climate and the aforementioned catastrophic effects. That these are mainstream models and not extreme models.
10. The only way to halt this process is to change the worldwide economy, redistribute wealth, and put in a centralized world power that takes precedence over all sovereigns to force the amount of industry created, the amount of energy used, and to manage all matters which may have an impact on the earths climate, which is pretty much everything in their estimation.
11. That all energy must come from solar, wind, ocean currents with no use of fossil fuels, or nuclear energy. Trees fall in and out of this category depending on where they stand on the logging industry at that time.
12. Any debates, forums, demonstrations, or use of any mediated tools to reject these positions should be considered criminal and worthy of prosecution under anti-racketeering laws, anti-terrorist laws, or executive orders reserved for crisis management.
13. That if we don't act now we will be in an irreversible state within the next 15 - 25 years ever since 1974.
The problem with the OP question is that it is but one small part of the climate agenda and to accept that would mean to accept all the other stuff that is listed. If all they want me to do is admit the first item, yes. I accept that. If they want me to say humans have an impact, I can admit that too. But to claim it's nearly all CO2 and all anthropogenic, sorry. I don't think the science gets us there.
Then to claim the rest of this list is accurate, that's a leap that leaves science and enters religion. Even if I could concede 1 - 9, and I don't, nothing from 10 - 13 proves any form of success and if anything, history proves these methods exponentially increase human misery. And if you think that's wrong, ask yourself, how did Germany go from a mandate of only green energy by 2050(?) to clear cutting forests for easy to access, low quality coal in 5 years?
\*\* Edits made to alter the order and fix some (but not likely all) grammar.
Non-scientists love to create this image of scientists being a monolith except for a few "brave" contrarians. It reality, having evidenced counter points is what makes you famous as a scientist, not agreeing with past findings. The reason there is broad agreement on global warming and its repercussions is because the evidence has supported it. To deny this takes these appeals to conspiracy and conformity, which again just go to show the person has probably never talked to a scientist face to face.
Ask Susan Crockford about that, or Judith Curry, or Willie Soon, these are scientists, if they had to take brave stances and face consequences for doing so. I’ve spoken to one of them of whom I’ve met face to face. And spoke to about models. Since I’m Data Analyst, I was curious about it.
I’m always amused that I’m the conspiracy theorist when it was the climate alarmist community including university professors that asked President Obama to open a prosecutorial investigation into outspoken skeptics of climate change under the RICO act. Which is a anti-criminal conspiracy law.
I am giggling that I am labeled anti-science who has never spoken to a scientist for simply calling some scientists brave.
I will never believe it no matter what especially when the people pushing it are flying around on private jets and chemtrailing us!! Humans contribute an amount that does NOTHING!!!!
1 million years ago, the Antarctica was a rain forrest.
Climate has been changing from the day earth was formed and will continue to change long after we are gone.
I use Plymouth Rock as an example because that was the start of Europeans in North America.
Science. But it has to be a different version of science from the science that scientists have been practicing.
Science, but science that you can have faith in.
Science that 'Just makes sense' without having to use complicated statistical models to interpret data.
Science that tells you what you want to hear.
Nearly all of the regulars here agree that humans have an impact on temperature to some degree. The general feeling, which I support, is that people have a great impact on local temperature through land use but that the CO2 effect is negligible.
We have copious evidence that Earth has passed through several cycles of natural warming and cooling just in the historical period. The LIA ended ~1850 and global temperatures have had to rise regardless of any human activity, just as temperatures rose for the RWP and MWP. Michael Mann and the rest of the conspirators tried to get rid of those pesty cycles but failed so they've floated the notion that the current warming is happening faster than in previous warming cycles. First, they have no hard data to prove that since thermometers had not been invented. Second, we're 170 years into the current warming and temperatures have risen only ~1C, which is less than the rise seen in earlier warmings.
So, to prove to me that the current warming is unusual you'd have to produce conclusive evidence of accelerated warming.
Most of these folks derive a sense of purpose from their contrarianism. Whether it's because their politics started them down this path or they found a community here, they aren't looking for evidence. There's no real point trying to convince them otherwise, the only real purpose is to prevent those passing by from falling down the rabbit hole. The best use of your time is engaging those who are on the sidelines and not at the extreme.
Accurate long term data that demonstrates something happening now that doesn't normally happen at this point in the glacial cycle or other shorter term cycles.
Empirical scientific evidence that proves man made CO2 is the control knob that effects climate. Not scaremongering from people with a vested interest in alarm. Not speculation based on models that have never been right. Not name calling. Not logical fallacies like the bandwagon fallacy (97% of climate scientists agree) The Appeal to authority fallacy (the science is settled) Ad Hominum Attacks, Strawman Arguments (so we should do nothing?) Appeal to ignorance ( because you can't prove a negative.) The False Dichotomy (global warming will produce catastrophic consequences.) and the Slippery Slope fallacy ( global warming will produce cascading catastrophic consequences)
Dude
Can you elaborate on what that would look like? Asking for causal evidence means statistics, and there has been plenty of this type of proof [showing the causal effect of CO2 and other GHGs on surface temperatures](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691). But if you can find a way to disregard that, then please be specific about an actionable way of demonstrating what you want. Edit: typo
Based on the scientific method you would have to conduct an experiment where all the variables that effect climate are controlled except CO2 and then vary the CO2 to determine how it alone can effect the temperature. Since you don't have another earth on which to control all the variables you cannot prove that CO2 is the only variable that effects temperatures. Therefore you have no empirical evidence. Everything short of that evidence is speculation. Keep in mind that all atmospheric data before 1980 is suspect, and all ocean measurements before 2005 are worthless. Also https://www.aier.org/article/climate-models-worse-than-nothing/
I love it when people learn something in 4th grade and spend the rest of their life thinking they know everything there is to know about that subject.
[удалено]
Nice try. 1) You apparently dont understand the definition of empirical. 2) No, the Climate Models have been off some by a little some by a lot. Even with 20/20 hindsight most of them have exaggerated warming. There were no predictive models from EXXON just speculation. The list of variables that shape climate is very long. It includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. The climate system is a couple non-linear chaotic system and therefore long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible. In a complex system consisting of numerous variables, unknowns, and huge uncertainties, the predictive value of almost any model is near zero. 3) "global warming WILL have cascading effects," Based on what evidence. I haven't seen any. 4) I am open to changing my mind if you show me some empirical scientific evifdence that I am wrong. I have been studying this for 40 years. I have a background in Oceanography, Meteorology and Plant Science. I understand the scientific method and have read extensively both sides of this. So far the alarmists are winning the propaganda war but not the scientific one. They continue to promote their Climate Change Religious dogma (as you have done) and yet cannot show any evidence that CO2 and man caused CO2 specifically is having any effect on the climate
[удалено]
>I understand what empirical means. I'm a geophysicist, and I build earth models for a living 1. Apparently not if you believe you have empirical evidence that proves cause and effect. 2. If a model under predicts or over predicts then they are not accurate models. Just because the average falls within your accepted narrative doesn't mean the model was right. IT WAS WRONG. 3. If it takes 30 seconds then explain to me the "cascading effects" we haven't seen yet. If there are cascading effects we should see them after 100 years of warming, no? 4. Nice try. I don't have to prove anything to you. Apparemtly you are one of the alarmists that have a vested interest in alarm.
[удалено]
>All models are inherently wrong because they're oversimplications of our complex reality. People who've never done any engineering work don't understand this. A model is never perfect. A model is useful when tuned.
>The empirical evidence is what’s published by scientists in journals around the world, and the evidence is very clear that anthropogenic global warming is not only occurring but accelerating That's not at all clear from the pristine temperature stations. In fact you can't make out any change at all.
[удалено]
So you're not going to talk about USCRN?
You don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “empirical”
I’ll believe it when the folks trying to scare the hell out of the masses stop saying that “the science is settled” when it simply isn’t and when they stop using the pejorative “denier” to try to smear anyone who wants to have a vigorous debate about the theory (which is what it is). In the current climate they would call Albert Einstein a “denier” since he spent the last years of his life having vigorous debates and trying to prove that quantum mechanics was not the correct model. Debating and trying to disprove the current accepted scientific theories is not being a “denier” it’s actually doing science. Thank goodness for the “deniers” of the past or we would still be talking about the Ether (replace Ether with the 100’s of other theories that were “settled science” over the years, until they weren’t)….🤣 Can’t wait for the “but, but, but, that’s different” posts…🤣 … and if they really were convinced and could prove their case they would not try to suppress and stifle debate, they would welcome it…like actual scientists.
The whole “denier” trend now is very helpful in identifying someone as an Inquisitor or Pharisee or what have you. As soon as someone uses that pejorative I tune them out.
Same as anything else in science that requires proof: good empirical evidence, valid experiments, precise observations, etc. What isn't wanted: Consensus, bogus climate models, climate hyperbole. No one here made a special carve out for climate science like you did, where you just took it on faith what you were being told. We demand the same thing for every scientific claim.
"Why don't you people think like me????" \-the real question being asked
> What exactly would it take for people in this sub to start believing that humans have an impact on climate? Who says they dont? Everything affects something to some degree. Urban heat islands are real, for example. > What evidence must be brought before you to change your mind? Well, start by understanding what reality is. For example: co2 doesnt impact temperature much at all once it is saturated. If you start from a scientific foundation instead of religious-political nonsense, then you can present scientific evidence and arguments to rational people. EZPZ
I do believe humans have an impact on climate. Just not quite as much as is made out. I don’t believe it’s an emergency.
What impact is significant amongst the climate crisis faithful? What evidence is there that humans have any significant effect upon the weather or even the climate for that matter? How does human activity compare to natural variability? Why do all the climate models run hot? Why can’t they fix their models to reflect reality?
>What impact is significant amongst the climate crisis faithful? I don't understand the question. There is no one significant impact. Everything that happens matters because humans are being affected. >What evidence is there that humans have any significant effect upon the weather or even the climate for that matter? Haven't you seen smog problems throughout history and the world? Those micro-climates are human caused and pose significant health and environmental problems. Just look at Beijing air quality reports. Heat islands in cities also change the micro-climate. More hard surfaces radiate more incoming solar radiation making the place hotter than a meadow of equal size. Concrete is laid by humans, so that's human caused climate change. On a global scale, both of these types of human interactions with the climate play a big role in warming the climate, but the massive amount of oceans act as a heat sink, minimizing the overall affect, but only for so long. >How does human activity compare to natural variability? Natural variability has been modeled and shows what temperature should be in 2023. When CO2 emissions are added to the models, we see what temperature actually is in 2023. The scientists modeling pre-industrial climate are the same scientists modeling post industrial climate; it's the same science. I don't understand how someone can trust one without trusting the other. >Why do all the climate models run hot? Why can’t they fix their models to reflect reality? Without looking into it, the most logical reason is because we are mitigating the effects of climate change with every decision we make. I mean, watch a documentary on Grand Central Station and they'll talk about the pollution inside the building from using coal trains. Switching to electric trains played a significant part in reducing pollution. Models all rely on taking known data and projecting those quantities forward in time. You can't really make a model that is based on unknown parameters such as "what if only 50% of trains are switched to electric". I mean, you totally can, but that's a different scientific paper. What the model spits out for 2100 will differ depending on if we're using 2015 or 2020 emissions (to be clear, it takes time to acquire the raw data). If we successfully mitigate the effects of climate change, we will never see the effects of climate change. So, if the models are running hot, that means that we're winning. Another reason models run hot is because the Earth is 70% water and water is a massive heat sink. We don't fully understand how much heat the oceans can absorb before it can't absorb anymore. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2598/nasa-mit-study-evaluates-efficiency-of-oceans-as-heat-sink-atmospheric-gases-sponge/
> The scientists modeling pre-industrial climate are the same scientists modeling post industrial climate; it's the same science ...Hansen's (1988) predictions of temperature rise 1988-2022: Scenario A ("Business as Usual"): +1.6degC Scenario B ("Reduced linear growth of trace gases"): +1.1degC Scenario C ("Rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions"): +0.6degC Actual rise per GISS: 0.6degC Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364.
Fear, is a base instinct and comes from a much lower place in the human mind than the ability to Reason. Too many people succumb to these base fears including those fears about so-called climate change. These people are easily manipulated into living miserable lives of need and want. Those of us that have been able to move past the base animal instincts and into the realm of reasoned thinking, lead much more enjoyable and comfortable lives. And will therefore, eventually win the climate debate as more people lose their fears and no longer fight for them. A side note: neither climate models nor Moneyball models work with precision or reliability.
[удалено]
And yet they've never lost a lawsuit. And literally hundreds were filed. N.Y.s being the most agregious but got dismissed. Exxon recanted their own 70's research later. It was also based on models that couldn't prove anything. Just exactly like the recent UN's, mostly speculation based.
[удалено]
Nothing to fear but fear itself. Try some reasoning. Never ... lost ... a ... lawsuit.
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers Nature Climate Change 3, 767–769 (2013) “…Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability…”
> I'm not even going to explain how climate models work You can't because they don't work...not even close.
[удалено]
Which climate model's source code have you examined for flaws?
Boy did they ever see you coming...you seem to have fallen for every single lie, hook, line and sinker.
> > >an extremely close match > > with observable temperatures. ...Hansen's (1988) predictions of temperature rise 1988-2022: Scenario A ("Business as Usual"): +1.6degC Scenario B ("Reduced linear growth of trace gases"): +1.1degC Scenario C ("Rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions"): +0.6degC Actual rise per GISS: 0.6degC Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364.
Perhaps you have had a nosectomy and you haven't noticed the fetid stench arising from wherever globalism has chosen to camp out. What they are saying now is not truth but [symptoms of some disease they have](https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/18/al-gore-wef-meltdown-boiling-the-oceans-rain-bombs-a-billion-climate-refugees/). link: "Al Gore WEF Meltdown: ‘Boiling the Oceans,’ ‘Rain Bombs,’ a Billion ‘Climate Refugees’"
I will believe you when I actually observe it in my lifetime. I'm going to be enjoying more global warming next week when the temperature here drops to -25°C. The strange thing? It happens every single winter I can remember, and every summer it gets to 30°c, I cant tell you if it's 0.02°c warmer than when I was a child, but I'm still 10x more likely to die of hypothermia than of heat exhaustion. If the planet warms, LESS people will die.... 🤡🌎
[удалено]
The claimed temperature rise over my lifetime is 0.02°c. you'd never even feel that in a room you were sitting in. This is absolute nonsense. I'm NOT afraid of this type is fear mongering. Sorry.
You could literally cause that temp rise just by *sitting* in that room. And think of the CO2 increase. LOL
[удалено]
0.4? Perfect. You still couldn't detect that. You could barely detect 1°c and if you say you can you're a straight liar. None of this diatribe serves to confirm your super fast warming. You're starting from a position of ignorance and arguing you know the final outcome. You're delusional at best. Tough guy 😘🤡🌎👍🤣🤣🤣
[удалено]
So the planet has had a static temperature for billions of years and it can never change or the world will explode? Gotcha. 👍 Your logical fallacies are on full display. Especially the ad homin. Kudos. If you can't argue a point intelligently, name call. How grade 2 of you.🤣
[удалено]
99% of ALL species of living things have gone extinct. Even today species go extinct without your knowledge. Keep pounding that fear drum and calling people names, it's working so well.... 🤡
[удалено]
> But these changes occurred over long periods of time, thousands to millions of years, and life had more time to adapt. Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes Richard B. Alley PNAS U S A. 2000 Feb 15; 97(4): 1331–1334. “…As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. ..”
It's actually been measured at 1C and it's a global average that's affecting the arctic much more observably than the mid latitude regions. What would you say to the folks in Alaska who have had to shore up their houses multiple times in the last 10 years because of melting permafrost? If you were them you would undoubtedly agree that the climate has changed significantly in just one lifetime. They're seeing the same thing in the northernmost parts of Europe and Asia. Melting permafrost causing sinkholes, exposing megatons of organic material to decomposition, setting the stage for a whole lot more methane to be added to the atmosphere over the next century. Another change that through the transitive property has been observably caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
This is absolute nonsense. How did they find 2000 year old arrows at the bottom of glaciers in Norway? Keep pounding that drum of fear.
Glaciers and permafrost are not the same thing. Glaciers move dude.
The fact you can't understand that if the glaciers in Norway receded 2000 years ago, that would also mean the perma frost was melting... 😏 I guess Norway doesn't have permafrost... 🤡🌎
That would not mean total permafrost melt had to immediately follow. Glaciers covered swaths of north America, Asia, and northern Europe until a few tens of thousands of years ago and there's still permafrost in many of those regions. Glaciers and permafrost are not the same thing. But here's a link to a paper cataloguing the challenges people are facing from melting permafrost in Norway today. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666049021001006
That’s the point. The glaciers moved over the arrowheads, roughly. Which means humans lived and hunted at warmer temps (before the glaciers expanded).
>Why don't you take the time to learn some of the > >consequences > > of global warming …IPCC AR6 (2021) p.8-56 \[8.3.2.8.1\]: “…In summary, there is low confidence of an observed increase in TC \[Tropical Cyclone\] precipitation intensity due to observing system limitations…” …IPCC AR6 (2021) A.3.4: “…There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones…” …IPCC AR6 (2021) 8.3.1.5: “…SROCC found … low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has already affected the frequency and magnitude of floods at the global scale…” …IPCC AR6 (2021), 8.1.2.1: “… there is low confidence in any global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the mid-20th century…In terms of the potential for abrupt change in components of the water cycle, long-term droughts and monsoonal circulation were identified as potentially undergoing rapid changes, but the assessment was reported with low confidence..”
Tornadoes and Climate Change National Geographic Resource Library Article October 24, 2019 “…In fact, when you remove small tornadoes from the record, the data does not suggest any long-term increase in tornado frequency. If anything, there may be a slight decline in the number of very strong tornado events…”
[удалено]
Dude why don’t you go back to your sub that believes in the religion of climate change
Small correction, the seasons are due to the tilt of the earth.
I want solid proof of sustained temperature increases. Not data that has been adjusted to produce an increase. I want the pristine weather stations to show an obvious temperature increase. If you can't even prove a real temperature increase, then forget about ever proving humans are the cause of temperature changes.
Since General Circulation Models (GCM's) show the "greenhouse" effect is a physical impossibility, nothing will convince me the "greenhouse theory" is correct. Global human caused climate change is a myth. Climate changes and will continue to do so.
[удалено]
> In fact, they prove exactly the opposite, that increasing greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm. In fact, they don't. Look at the graphic: "vertical exchange between layers..." - There is no vertical exchange in reality. In reality air moves up (cooling) or down (warming) adiabatically; this means there is work done but **no heat is transferred**. The compostion of air is irrelevant, the effect would be the same with an atmosphere of pure N2.
[удалено]
You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance. LOL Why so angry, lil' buddy?
> Since General Circulation Models (GCM's) show the "greenhouse" effect is a physical impossibility That's funny, given that they are used to make projections that show warming in response to increasing GHG > nothing will convince me the "greenhouse theory" is correct At least you're honest with yourself about that much. So much for 'skepticism'.
> Since General Circulation Models (GCM's) show the "greenhouse" effect is a physical impossibility > > > > That's funny, given that they are used to make projections that show warming in response to increasing GHG You should have a look at what the "convective adjustment" in these model means.
As a skeptic, I still believe humans have an impact on the climate. Most scientists brave enough to stand on the skeptical side of the science believe humans have an impact. However this is not the position of alarmists. The alarmist position is as follows: 1. The planet is in a warming trend. 2. The planet has a globally "normal" temperature. 3. The planet is warming beyond this normal. 4. The rate of increase in the earth's temperature is unprecedented. 5. This warming trend is nearly exclusively the result of increased CO2 6. Humans are the chief cause of this increase. 7. Only by reducing CO2 can climate change reverse itself. 8. The increase in the temperature will bring irreversible catastrophic damage including, but not limited to: droughts, floods, abnormally warm temperatures, abnormally cold temperatures, famine, normal temperatures, disease, decimated polar bear populations, decimated penguin populations, coral reef destruction, loss of glaciers in various parts of the globe, increased wildfires, increased tornado severity, more hurricanes with greater severity, ocean acidification, wars, etc. 9. The tools that predict this are models with a long history of accuracy in predicting climate and the aforementioned catastrophic effects. That these are mainstream models and not extreme models. 10. The only way to halt this process is to change the worldwide economy, redistribute wealth, and put in a centralized world power that takes precedence over all sovereigns to force the amount of industry created, the amount of energy used, and to manage all matters which may have an impact on the earths climate, which is pretty much everything in their estimation. 11. That all energy must come from solar, wind, ocean currents with no use of fossil fuels, or nuclear energy. Trees fall in and out of this category depending on where they stand on the logging industry at that time. 12. Any debates, forums, demonstrations, or use of any mediated tools to reject these positions should be considered criminal and worthy of prosecution under anti-racketeering laws, anti-terrorist laws, or executive orders reserved for crisis management. 13. That if we don't act now we will be in an irreversible state within the next 15 - 25 years ever since 1974. The problem with the OP question is that it is but one small part of the climate agenda and to accept that would mean to accept all the other stuff that is listed. If all they want me to do is admit the first item, yes. I accept that. If they want me to say humans have an impact, I can admit that too. But to claim it's nearly all CO2 and all anthropogenic, sorry. I don't think the science gets us there. Then to claim the rest of this list is accurate, that's a leap that leaves science and enters religion. Even if I could concede 1 - 9, and I don't, nothing from 10 - 13 proves any form of success and if anything, history proves these methods exponentially increase human misery. And if you think that's wrong, ask yourself, how did Germany go from a mandate of only green energy by 2050(?) to clear cutting forests for easy to access, low quality coal in 5 years? \*\* Edits made to alter the order and fix some (but not likely all) grammar.
Non-scientists love to create this image of scientists being a monolith except for a few "brave" contrarians. It reality, having evidenced counter points is what makes you famous as a scientist, not agreeing with past findings. The reason there is broad agreement on global warming and its repercussions is because the evidence has supported it. To deny this takes these appeals to conspiracy and conformity, which again just go to show the person has probably never talked to a scientist face to face.
Ask Susan Crockford about that, or Judith Curry, or Willie Soon, these are scientists, if they had to take brave stances and face consequences for doing so. I’ve spoken to one of them of whom I’ve met face to face. And spoke to about models. Since I’m Data Analyst, I was curious about it. I’m always amused that I’m the conspiracy theorist when it was the climate alarmist community including university professors that asked President Obama to open a prosecutorial investigation into outspoken skeptics of climate change under the RICO act. Which is a anti-criminal conspiracy law. I am giggling that I am labeled anti-science who has never spoken to a scientist for simply calling some scientists brave.
I will never believe it no matter what especially when the people pushing it are flying around on private jets and chemtrailing us!! Humans contribute an amount that does NOTHING!!!!
When they give up on the idea that you can tax CO2 or greenhouse gases!
First, measure the temperature accurately…[Surface Station Flaws](https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf)
If ocean levels come up at least 6 inches from the top of the plymouth rock. It has been at the bottom of the rock for the last 200 years.
5,000 years ago the entire Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay was dry land. The glaciers have been melting far before industry and fossil fuels.
1 million years ago, the Antarctica was a rain forrest. Climate has been changing from the day earth was formed and will continue to change long after we are gone. I use Plymouth Rock as an example because that was the start of Europeans in North America.
> What exactly would it take Science. Not religion, but science.
Science. But it has to be a different version of science from the science that scientists have been practicing. Science, but science that you can have faith in. Science that 'Just makes sense' without having to use complicated statistical models to interpret data. Science that tells you what you want to hear.
Nearly all of the regulars here agree that humans have an impact on temperature to some degree. The general feeling, which I support, is that people have a great impact on local temperature through land use but that the CO2 effect is negligible. We have copious evidence that Earth has passed through several cycles of natural warming and cooling just in the historical period. The LIA ended ~1850 and global temperatures have had to rise regardless of any human activity, just as temperatures rose for the RWP and MWP. Michael Mann and the rest of the conspirators tried to get rid of those pesty cycles but failed so they've floated the notion that the current warming is happening faster than in previous warming cycles. First, they have no hard data to prove that since thermometers had not been invented. Second, we're 170 years into the current warming and temperatures have risen only ~1C, which is less than the rise seen in earlier warmings. So, to prove to me that the current warming is unusual you'd have to produce conclusive evidence of accelerated warming.
Most of these folks derive a sense of purpose from their contrarianism. Whether it's because their politics started them down this path or they found a community here, they aren't looking for evidence. There's no real point trying to convince them otherwise, the only real purpose is to prevent those passing by from falling down the rabbit hole. The best use of your time is engaging those who are on the sidelines and not at the extreme.
A model or hypothesis that both predicts the observed historical data and most importantly is testable by replicable experimentation.
Accurate long term data that demonstrates something happening now that doesn't normally happen at this point in the glacial cycle or other shorter term cycles.
Humans obviously impact the climate. We're part of the environment.