At what point is presentation of physical laws (thermodynamics), experimental demonstration of phenomena (energy in certain wavelengths being trapped by specified molecules such as CO2, H2O, etc) and measurements of change in heat energy capture of the planet while also calculating how much these atmospheric molecules have increased directly due to human activity, considered to be approaching proof?

1.If more energy is poured into a body than is allowed to escape, then the temperature of the body must rise to achieve equilibrium.
2. Certain gas molecules block energy release. CO2 and Methane are examples
3. Man's activity has raised the number of these molecules above what would be from otherwise normal processes.
4. The amounts in the atmosphere can be, and are, measured. The increase in energy capture can be calculated as well.
5. Paleo data is available for times of similar gas concentrations and associated temperatures.
6. This is key: Specific feed back areas will make for variances; there will be errors in data collection and short term interpretations and conclusions; the planet is an emergent property that will sometimes react in a manner not completely anticipated (particularly in regards to time)....HOWEVER....the overall trajectory of the physical processes are well understood with the general outcomes as near a certainty as we mortals can speak of. In other words, the details may vary, but the trajectory of overall global warming will pretty much match the amount of greenhouse gases that result from Mans activities.

I personally have zero expectation of mankind taking any steps significant enough to reduce the annual addition of greenhouse gases. The temp of both the atmosphere and oceans will increase accordingly. The acidity of the oceans will continue to increase. All processes affected by these increases will accelerate. Sever weather, droughts, fires, sea level rise, etc which in turn affect our civilization. Famine, migrations, wars, economy stresses/collapse...which all have additional feedbacks that will probably cascade.

At some point the increases from Man's activity will slow significantly as a result of all this fun stuff. If we lack the wisdom to limit the output of our technological success, Nature will limit them for us. She has a long and honored tradition of doing so when any of her populations indulge in overshoot.
These kids referenced by the original poster are protesting against this dystopian future. I expect their efforts to be fruitless, but at least they are trying.
Man is quite clever, but He is not wise. He tends to believe what he wants to believe. Proofs seldom can penetrate that emotional armor.

Thanks for that post ludicrous.

Multiple logical fallacies including:

Appeal to Authority - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Genetic - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Many of the organizations pushing the climate change narrative are funded by governments and/or political organizations in and of themselves.

Also, just because lots of people keep repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. You should read up on what this guy had to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

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 :rolleyes:


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.

Yes but if the models don't work then it means its possible / probable the underlying assumptions are inaccurate too.

Scientists tend to agree with whoever is funding them.

Radical environmentalism is nothing more than a vehicle used by socialists and globalists to further their agenda. I'm not talking about conservation or clean water or clean air, that stuff isn't radical. But the idea that government policy should be based around things that are not proven is absolutely absurd. Completely changing one's economy based on an unproven threat is absurd. Restricting one's lifestyle (or the lifestyle of others) based on an unproven threat is absurd. Forcing people to eat bugs and grass, live in mud huts, and walk everywhere because the temperature might change 1/4 of 1 degree is absurd.

Again, it is a vehicle for socialism and globalism.




CO2 is CO2.... it either is CO2, or it isn't. And there is nothing wrong with CO2, in fact it's what plants crave ;-)

The idea that somehow CO2 is "bad" is moving the goal posts from pollutants and other generally harmful things, to a naturally occurring gas.

False premise. No one has to inhibit economic growth.



Then why is there so much disagreement among the scientific community on the cause of climate change?

You guys are way overthinking this climate change stuff. "10 years to save the world" have come and gone multiple times. The louder they are, the more fake they are. Just do what they do and life is good.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environm...king-protests/

So, guiding you away from those with that clearly have ulterior motives and to legitimate science falls under “appealing to authority”? Not hardly.

NASA, AMA, NOAA, USGS, AMS, on and on…even name ONE university’s sciences department not in concurrence.

You brought up volcanic emissions which is a non starter.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/vo...affect-climate

You can continue to side with non science based organizations and I will side with the reputable science organizations. BTW, they are not involved in some cast left wing pinko commie socialist conspiracy.

The REAL logical fallacy is your contention that anyone in disagreement with your view lacks critical thinking skills.


https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/vo...affect-climate

Interesting that all of your sources are from the government.

No, that is not so interesting.

“Government” scientists sent us to the moon and back. Is that some conspiracy too?

Here is just ONE of the widely available NGO links. However, I suppose that you will dismiss because they are in bed with our monolithic government and are in on the vast conspiracy. :rolleyes:

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/202...climate-change