Originally Posted by
SonicFlyer
The models are unreliable and there is no consensus among the scientific community. That in and of itself is clear as day.
It couldn't have anything to do with the fluctuation of the sun's energy output? Or maybe a tiny shift in orbit/proximity to the sun? Or the volcanos that spew out junk into the atmosphere? No of course not, none of that stuff matters. Only me eating steaks and driving my car to work is what causes climate change
Ask yourself this.... why has the climate changed on Mars and other planets? Is it because of the emissions of the probes we have sent there?
Sonic: I didn't want to get sucked into debate on climate change, but I guess I lack self discipline.
First, I will compliment you on your posts largely staying respectful. I don't remember ever agreeing with you about anything, but I also don't recall you ever spewing vitriol. That has its own intrinsic value.
The first part of my post had nothing to do with models. It referenced the basic science that is involved. That science is not in dispute.
You bring up some possible alternative explanations. Reasonable.
Thinking that the scientists whom do the research haven't thought of all these same alternatives, that is not reasonable.
Just to address two off the top of my head.
1. Volcanos; Part of the natural order. Most importantly, the CO2 from volcanic activity has a different chemical signature than CO2 from fossil fuels. So, when you read a report that the CO2 is now 4xxPPM, it is also calculated how much of that is from human activity.
2. For about 15 years I was actively interested in learning about global warming/climate change. NASA website was a significant part of my attempt to educate myself on the subject. (In 2015 a couple of tsunamis impacted my personal life and i stopped keeping up with the general public body of knowledge, so my info is less specific since then, but the science has not changed). Due to using NASA as a reference I was aware of an ongoing study of the suns activity level. It did show a slight change. It showed a very slight decreasing trend in activity/output. Ergo, if it contributed anything to climate change it would have been towards cooling. (the same as earth's wobble/orbital/inclinations currently trend...towards cooling as in past ice ages). So....dead end as to those possibilities contributing to the current warming trend.
Good questions to ask. Researchers ask them continually. When the answers to the questions do not support the hypothesis, then researchers accept that and move on to investigating other explanations.
Is it possible that a fundamental error in all the climate research of the last 30 plus years will emerge? Of course. Every country in the world is hoping so. (so they don't have to take any steps to inhibit economic growth)
But is there a probability of something fundamentally wrong in the thinking/analysis showing up?
No, it is not probable.