Scientist/ Science Enthusiast thoughts on Climate Change?

[dontnonothingtom]

I absolutely no nothing about science other than what I learn in my environment and man class in college. This people pn twitter keep sending me links to agreements again climate change. I believe climate change is real. I just want to know from real scientist or science enthusiast their actual take on it. I am over the paid people like Nye and Tyson or paid off scientists who goes against just because of their donors. I want honest feedback and studies from both sides of the agreement so I can be more informed. I want to understand both sides and real people real thoughts about it.

[Phi for All]

I absolutely no nothing about science other than what I learn in my environment and man class in college.

 

Let me start by saying that, if you know little science, honest feedback and studies may not mean much to you. You won't know the difference unless you've studied extensively.

 

One thing a non-expert should know is what consensus really means in science. When you have consensus among experts in a particular branch of science (such as climate science), it means the vast majority have allowed a thorough review of the evidence to lead them to the same conclusions. That happened quite some time ago.

 

What we have now is different. On the subject of anthropogenic climate change, there is a consilience. That's when other branches of science (meteorology, geology, biology, etc) independently converge on the same conclusions. There is no doubt among those with the essential knowledge.

I am over the paid people like Nye and Tyson or paid off scientists who goes against just because of their donors.

 

I understand where this sentiment comes from, but you're applying it badly. A scientist who is paid to come up with an opposing view is different from someone like Nye or Tyson, who express scientific consensus and are supported by sponsors or donations.

 

If I write a position paper on climate science that meets with peer approval, there are people who will support my efforts to present this paper at conferences and paid engagements. Just because I'm paid for my arguments doesn't mean they're wrong or fallacious. Making sure the public is well-informed should be a priority. Experts get paid for their expertise, right? Why are science experts any different, right?

[beecee]

Let me add to the excellent reply by the previous poster, even if there was any doubt as to the accuracy and validity of human induced climate change, I would say that it would be far more better to err on the side of caution, considering what is at stake.

[HB of CJ]

What beecee has essentially stated is that bad science is OK because it is far more better to err on the side of bad science considering what is at stake? Flipping the question. What may be at stake is the future of world political domination into more aspects of our private lives based upon bad science?

 

The basic mistake Phi for all makes is assuming just because some/most agree that must make such science good and true. I believe history bear this out to be a mistake. We might be appalled to learn how much agreement is based upon so little good data or even common sense. Mankind caused climate change?

 

The fact is we do not know. Not anywhere enough accurate climate data. Enough questions has been brought to light regarding the basic accuracy and methodology of "accepted" man kind caused climate change studies to give us pause. That has not happened YET with the climate change believers.

 

ANYTIME financial backers of scientific studies have a vested or inside interest in the results of such studies, such studies MUST be considered to be scientifically invalid. Follow the money. Very easy. Very distressing. The wheels are coming off the man made climate change hysteria wagon. About time..

 

What is at stake here? Nothing about climate change. All about global political tyranny.

[rangerx]

 

The fact is we do not know.

 

The fact is you don't know and are the hysterical one.

 

I'm a pearl farmer and worked with shellfish every day for nearly five decades. I never received a nickel of funding from anyone, ever. Unreasonable, politically driven agendas like yours put industries like mine out of business as the ecology declines.

 

Ocean acidification, the term for the decline in pH of ocean water resulting from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, causes severe potential threats to marine environments, not least because of the rapid rate at which it is progressing compared with anything organisms have faced in the past. This makes adaptation difficult, even impossible in estuaries and other low salinity areas during heavy rainfall and runoff. The unique characteristics of the oceans suggest that ocean acidification will have its greatest initial impacts therein the waters surrounding biomasses, decreasing towards the center if greenhouse gas emissions continue to occur at present rates.

 

The critical compound to a pearl farmer is Aragonite, a calcium carbonate derivative essential to shell forming organisms such as the pteropods that are important to the ocean food chain, will be undersaturated, or present at low levels, throughout the oceans by 2100 under the IPCC IS92a “business as usual” emissions scenario. The Southern Ocean is already relatively undersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Even under the more conservative IPCC S650 scenario, which assumes that atmospheric CO2 will only reach 563 ppm by 2100, the aragonite saturation horizon is likely to have shrunk from its present depth of 730 to 60 m by 2100, with the entire Weddell Sea undersaturated with respect to aragonite. Under these conditions, some organisms are having difficulty forming shells, with possibly serious impacts on the food web. It is imperative that more research programs be undertaken to fill current knowledge gaps on ocean acidification and its impacts as soon as possible. Long-term studies of acidification for the entire life cycle of important species are needed, including implications for non-calcifying organisms and impacts of ocean acidification on other biological processes besides calcification in invertebrates and vertebrates.

 

Acidification occurs because CO2 in the air dissolves into ocean water, creating carbonic acid. Increasing amounts of dissolved CO2 in ocean water lead to chemical reactions that decrease the availability of carbonate ions.

[beecee]

What beecee has essentially stated is that bad science is OK because it is far more better to err on the side of bad science considering what is at stake?

A shame and a pity that the obvious stands out clearly...that being of course your political agenda.

Let's put things right again, as opposed to your Trump like, "stuff you Jack, I'm alright" mentality.

Climate change is and does naturally take place......Scientific Evidence world wide and over many years has shown that human activity is responsible for at least a percentage of that change.......Even if there is a small chance that the evidence is inconclusive or wrong, the stakes are such that it would and is far more prudent to err on the side of caution.

Now isn't that more logical then your own politically inspired, hysterical agenda?

Edited July 9, 2017 by beecee

[iNow]

Even if there is a small chance that the evidence is inconclusive or wrong, the stakes are such that it would and is far more prudent to err on the side of caution.

Far more conservative, actually, despite self-described "conservatives" so often standing in the way of addressing reality.

[Phi for All]

The basic mistake Phi for all makes is assuming just because some/most agree that must make such science good and true.

 

It's been well established that you have no idea how science really works. Your basic mistake is you don't understand the basics of evidence. Climate science isn't about opinion.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

It's been well established that you have no idea how science really works. Your basic mistake is you don't understand the basics of evidence. Climate science isn't about opinion.

 

 

Your condescension is profoundly anti-scientific and unintelligent. There are tens of thousands of people who DO "understand the basics of evidence" and are well versed in "how science really works." And yes, climate science IS "about opinion," which is the point of the climate change sharia endlessly repeating "97%, 97%, 97% consensus!"

 

Isn't it interesting that the climate change sharia has taken over the term "denier," which had previously and virtually exclusively been used in context with denying the Holocaust, and applied it to climate change. Ptolemy was one of the earliest "deniers" of scientific consensus when he posited a heliocentric solar system, contrary to what had been accepted for over 1,000 years.

 

The "conservative" approach would be to stop throwing billions of dollars at global warming research, and government subsidies of "green energy" and other nonsensical attempts to correct a non-existent problem. Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever has a 29-minute video expressing his contempt for climate change hysteria. Dr. Giaever says the history of earth's average temperature is "remarkably constant over a period of hundreds of years."

 

The only way climate change advocates can maintain the fear is to continue creating exaggerated claims, and displaying fraudulently misleading graphs showing fractions of a degree or a few parts per million. The Keeling Curve shows a substantial upward slope for two contrived reasons:

1. It does not have a zero base, but rather begins at 310 ppmv, and terminates at ~390 ppmv, and 2. It omits THE dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which constitutes ~15,000 parts per million.

 

Simply adding water vapor to the Keeling Curve puts carbon dioxide as a flat line at the bottom.

 

 

Finally, former Secretary of State, John Kerry, states that if Americans stopped using all fossil fuels completely, it would not change anything whatsoever.

Look it up on YouTube.com

[John Cuthber]

It is important to realise that scientific consensus is not like a political one.
The scientists do not get together and agree a policy.

What happens is that the scientists (largely acting independently) look at the data and form their own opinion.

 

The reason that something like 99% of them form the same opinion is simply because that's the opinion supported by the data.

It's the opinion which fits the real world.

[swansont]

Your condescension is profoundly anti-scientific and unintelligent. There are tens of thousands of people who DO "understand the basics of evidence" and are well versed in "how science really works." And yes, climate science IS "about opinion," which is the point of the climate change sharia endlessly repeating "97%, 97%, 97% consensus!"

 

Isn't it interesting that the climate change sharia has taken over the term "denier," which had previously and virtually exclusively been used in context with denying the Holocaust, and applied it to climate change. Ptolemy was one of the earliest "deniers" of scientific consensus when he posited a heliocentric solar system, contrary to what had been accepted for over 1,000 years.

I find it amusing that the right names many things to shape a narrative, and yet complains when the left does it.

 

The only way climate change advocates can maintain the fear is to continue creating exaggerated claims, and displaying fraudulently misleading graphs showing fractions of a degree or a few parts per million. The Keeling Curve shows a substantial upward slope for two contrived reasons:

1. It does not have a zero base, but rather begins at 310 ppmv, and terminates at ~390 ppmv, and 2. It omits THE dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which constitutes ~15,000 parts per million.

 

Simply adding water vapor to the Keeling Curve puts carbon dioxide as a flat line at the bottom.

 

 

There are more recent graphs that show CO2 exceeding 400 ppm. You just picked one that's 8 years old.

http://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/mlo_full_record-copy_trimmed1500.png

 

Since water vapor is already at several tens of percent of its maximum value, there's not a whole lot of room for it to grow. i.e. RH is capped at 100%. Also, water is very short-lived in the atmosphere (it rains). Over the course of a century, it is not going to double. It has not doubled relative to a century or so in the past.

 

It is impoirtant, because if the temperature goes up a degree, then the absolute amount of water the atmosphere can hold will increase. That's the effect to focus on. If you care about the science.

 

Finally, former Secretary of State, John Kerry, states that if Americans stopped using all fossil fuels completely, it would not change anything whatsoever.

Look it up on YouTube.com

How about you present supporting evidence yourself. I care more about the science behind the claim and the context of the statement.

What beecee has essentially stated is that bad science is OK because it is far more better to err on the side of bad science considering what is at stake? Flipping the question. What may be at stake is the future of world political domination into more aspects of our private lives based upon bad science?

 

The basic mistake Phi for all makes is assuming just because some/most agree that must make such science good and true. I believe history bear this out to be a mistake. We might be appalled to learn how much agreement is based upon so little good data or even common sense. Mankind caused climate change?

 

The fact is we do not know. Not anywhere enough accurate climate data. Enough questions has been brought to light regarding the basic accuracy and methodology of "accepted" man kind caused climate change studies to give us pause. That has not happened YET with the climate change believers.

Who is "we"? You may not know enough, but you have an opportunity to learn.

 

ANYTIME financial backers of scientific studies have a vested or inside interest in the results of such studies, such studies MUST be considered to be scientifically invalid. Follow the money. Very easy. Very distressing. The wheels are coming off the man made climate change hysteria wagon. About time..

 

What is at stake here? Nothing about climate change. All about global political tyranny.

 

Yes, let's follow the money. The people doing the climate change denial studies are largely backed by the fossil fuel industry.

 

Funny thing is, there was a recent effort, funded by a Koch brothers' foundation, to debunk climate change. They looked at the science, and concluded that it's real.

http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

 

So even the denialist money says it's real.

 

Most scientists are funded based on the quality of their work and the proposal, and not on any particular expected result. There is no "follow the money" for them. If they found climate change was not caused by humans, they would continue to study what's going on, or move on to something else. There is no vested interest.

 

Furthermore, look at people removed from this. The military, whose interest is in securing the borders, is very interested in climate change, and have concluded it's real and caused by humans. The opening of the arctic means having to deal with new areas to patrol. Rising seal levels are an issue because ports will have to be reconfigured.

 

Businesses who are impacted also have concluded that it's real.

 

"Follow the money" doesn't lead you where you thought it would.

[John Cuthber]

"Isn't it interesting that the climate change sharia has taken over the term "denier," "
Possibly less interesting than your decision to (mis)use the word "Sharia" when you say this.

"Simply adding water vapor to the Keeling Curve puts carbon dioxide as a flat line at the bottom."
No.

Whatever graph scale you put it on, the numbers are still real.

The CO2 concentration goes up from about 315 to about 385.

A rise of 70ppm against a start of 315 (actually, the pre industrial value is even lower and the current one is higher but never mind) is still a 22% rise.

You can't sensibly say that 22% isn't a change.

 

 

But why just add the water vapour?
Why not add the oxygen and nitrogen too
Were you concerned that such obvious manipulation couldn't be overlooked?
People would notice that you are adding apples to oranges; it's not legitimate arithmetic.

 

"Finally, former Secretary of State, John Kerry, states that if Americans stopped using all fossil fuels completely, it would not change anything whatsoever.

Look it up on YouTube.com"
Show us the clip so we can see the context.
For example, if it says "Unless the rest of the world joins in, 'if Americans stopped using all fossil fuels completely, it would not change anything whatsoever' so we need the Paris deal" or something like that, it rather changes the emphasis.

What beecee has essentially stated is that bad science is OK because it is far more better to err on the side of bad science considering what is at stake?

 

No.

What they said was that imperfect science is the best we (ever) have.
If we wait until we are certain, then it will certainly be too late.

There isn't any "bad science " in the first couple of posts, so there's no way that a comment on the first 2 posts could be a commentary on "bad science"

 

Incidentally, the OP might want to take a quick look at the reputation points of the posters here to get some sense of the quality of the previous contributions from contributors on this site

.

Edited July 10, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

Your condescension is profoundly anti-scientific and unintelligent. There are tens of thousands of people who DO "understand the basics of evidence" and are well versed in "how science really works." And yes, climate science IS "about opinion," which is the point of the climate change sharia endlessly repeating "97%, 97%, 97% consensus!"

 

What seems like condescension is simply years of trying to help people with their scientific methodology misconceptions. Your mistake about "opinion" is a good example. When a jury makes a decision based on provided evidence in a court case, do you think they're expressing their "opinion", or are they being asked for conclusions based solely where the evidence and arguments lead? Do they tell the judge they "think" the plaintiff is guilty, or do they say they "find" him guilty? Climate scientists "found" their explanations, they didn't make them up so they could believe in them. If there are 3% who deny climate change, hopefully it's because the evidence led them to different conclusions. I'm not sure why they matter. For non-experts like you and me, doesn't it make sense to stick with the 97% mainstream?

 

Your arguments sound canned and worn out, like you've repeated them, had them refuted, ignored the refutation, and then continued to repeat them to a different audience, because you're emotionally tied to the arguments. You really don't want to change or be thought responsible for messing up your grandchildren's world, so you grab weird, emotional appeals instead of simply following the evidence to reasoned conclusions. You drag all this extraneous sharia/denier garbage into a conversation where we just want to discuss the evidence, and the science, and the methodology involved. It's not necessary.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

HB of CJ, on 08 Jul 2017 - 5:47 PM, said:

What beecee has essentially stated is that bad science is OK because it is far more better (sic) to err on the side of bad science considering what is at stake?

beecee:

 

A shame and a pity that the obvious stands out clearly...that being of course your political agenda.

Let's put things right again, as opposed to your Trump like, "stuff you Jack, I'm alright" mentality.

Climate change is and does naturally take place......Scientific Evidence world wide and over many years has shown that human activity is responsible for at least a percentage of that change.......Even if there is a small chance that the evidence is inconclusive or wrong, the stakes are such that it would and is far more prudent to err on the side of caution.

Now isn't that more logical then (sic) your own politically inspired, hysterical agenda?

Where to begin in such a target rich environment.

"Far more better (sic) "

"more logical then (sic)"

"politically inspired, hysterical agenda"

The "hysterical agenda" is completely that of the climate change sharia, which demands that everyone cut their carbon dioxide emissions 80%, even as the population grows inexorably. Moreover, the climate change sharia insists on continuing the flow of "research" billions of tax dollars, which of course always produce the predictable results of more hysteria, more fear, more demands, more hypocrisy.

Here Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever smashes the global warming hoax, pointing out that miniscule increases in temperature or sea level are trivial compared with seasonal changes of 50 to 100 degrees F, and tidal changes from 7 to 45 feet.

Secretary of State John Kerry points out that if all Americans stopped using all fossil fuels, it would make NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever.

So keep preaching the wasteful expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. Keep preaching environmental hysteria, arising from the political agenda of global warming, as admitted by this high level United Nations functionary:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

_______________

 

Finally, the "97% consensus" claim is also fraudulent, based on a paper by a graduate student that loaded the questions and selected the "97%" from a very small subset of scientists questioned. Additional details available for those too lazy to locate them personally.

Edited July 11, 2017 by GeniusIsDisruptive

[Lord Antares]

 

Here Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever smashes the global warming hoax, pointing out that miniscule increases in temperature or sea level are trivial compared with seasonal changes of 50 to 100 degrees F, and tidal changes from 7 to 45 feet.

 

 

This is an unbelievably stupid comment.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

I find it amusing that the right names many things to shape a narrative, and yet complains when the left does it.

[iN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T MIND THAT LEFTISTS CO-OPT AND ABUSE "DENIERS" BUT WHEN THOSE YOU HATE SO VERY MUCH DO LIKEWISE, WELL, THAT'S SIMPLY UNFAIR. I THINK IT'S HIGH TIME THE RIGHT BEGAN FOLLOWING BARACK OBAMA'S HERO, AND AUTHOR OF RULES FOR RADICALS, SAUL ALINSKY: "RIDICULE IS MAN'S MOST POTENT WEAPON." MOREOVER, BARACK OBAMA SAID, "I WANT YOU TO ARGUE WITH THEM, GET IN THEIR FACE." AND SO I DO.]

 

 

There are more recent graphs that show CO2 exceeding 400 ppm. You just picked one that's 8 years old.

http://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/mlo_full_record-copy_trimmed1500.png

 

[AND YOU PRETEND THAT ADDING 1O OR 20 MORE PARTS PER million WILL MAKE SOME KIND OF DIFFERENCE? IN THE CONTEXT OF 15,500 PARTS PER MILLION FOR WATER VAPOR PLUS CARBON DIOXIDE? GO AHEAD, MAKE YOUR OWN GRAPH AND GIN UP THE CO2 TO SCALE. THE GRAPH WILL NOT CHANGE.]

 

 

Since water vapor is already at several tens of percent of its maximum value, there's not a whole lot of room for it to grow. i.e. RH is capped at 100%. Also, water is very short-lived in the atmosphere (it rains). Over the course of a century, it is not going to double. It has not doubled relative to a century or so in the past.

 

[YOU ERR GRIEVOUSLY AND REPEATEDLY, AS IF "NEW" WATER VAPOR BEHAVES SOMEHOW DIFFERENTLY FROM "OLD WATER VAPOR."

 

HERE IS SCIENCE: THEY DON'T. WATER IS WATER. 1.5% DOESN'T need TO INCREASE. THE 15,500 PPM VALUE FOR TWO GREENHOUSE GASES SHOWS HOW TRIVIAL 1.36 PPM ANNUAL INCREASE REALLY IS.]

 

 

It is impoirtant, because if the temperature goes up a degree, then the absolute amount of water the atmosphere can hold will increase. That's the effect to focus on. If you care about the science.

 

[YOU REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT "HOLD" WATER. TSK, TSK. DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT SCIENCE?]

 

 

How about you present supporting evidence yourself. I care more about the science behind the claim and the context of the statement.

 

[THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS MY PRESENTATION OF THE SCARY GRAPH, A COMPLETE FRAUD, 8 YEARS OLD OR 8 MINUTES OLD. I CREATED THE GRAPH ADDING ONLY WATER VAPOR. REVISE IT TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT, BUT BE ACCURATE. I WAS.]

 

Who is "we"? You may not know enough, but you have an opportunity to learn.

 

[AND YOU DO NOT "HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN" AFTER CLAIMING ERRONEOUSLY THAT THE ATMOSPHERE "HOLDS" WATER?

AFTER CLAIMING ERRONEOUSLY THAT "NEW" WATER BEHAVES DIFFERENTLY THAN "OLD" WATER? MORE OF YOUR ERRONEOUS CLAIMS EXPOSED BELOW.]

 

 

Yes, let's follow the money. The people doing the climate change denial studies are largely backed by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[PLEASE, STOP IT. IVAR GIAEVER GETS NOT A DIME FROM THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. PHYSICS NOBEL LAUREATE. I ALREADY PROVIDED THE LINK TO HIS SPEECH. MOREOVER, GOVERNMENT GRANTS ARE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN EXCESS OF PALTRY FOSSIL FUEL COMPANY FUNDING.

NOT TO MENTION "CARBON TAXES" AND GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO FAILED "GREEN" INDUSTRIES SUCH AS SOLYNDRA, WHICH GAVE BARACK THE CROOK OBAMA $50,000 OR MORE FOR HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN. WHAT CORRUPTION.]

 

Funny thing is, there was a recent effort, funded by a Koch brothers' foundation, to debunk climate change. They looked at the science, and concluded that it's real.

http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

 

So even the denialist money says it's real.

 

[TELL IT TO IVAR GIAEVER AND JOHN KERRY. THEY VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE THAT AMERICANS CAN CHANGE ANYTHING.]

 

 

 

"Follow the money" doesn't lead you where you thought it would.

 

[ John Kerry says we can do nothing. You stop using gasoline. Stop going on vacations. Sell your car and never take a plane or bus or taxi again.

I have no problem with that. Meanwhile eco-hypocrites like Barack Obama, and Al Gore, and Richard Branson are more than compensating for your feeble conservation.]

 

 

This is an unbelievably stupid comment.

Obviously you are so much smarter than Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics. So smart, in fact, that you didn't even bother to listen to his speech.

You already know it all.

[swansont]

 

[YOU REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT "HOLD" WATER. TSK, TSK. DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT SCIENCE?]

 

 

 

Well, that tells me how much you care abut science and how seriously I am going to take you. No water in the atmosphere? And yet you say there's 15,000 ppm. You can't even keep your arguments straight.

[Lord Antares]

 

Obviously you are so much smarter than Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics. So smart, in fact, that you didn't even bother to listen to his speech.

You already know it all.

 

This is your second strike because:

 

1) You already mentioned how you shouldn't accept argument from authority so the 97% (or whatever) of scientists who agree on climate change means nothing and then you go on to mention that the argument is correct because a Nobel Laureate is saying so. Your argument is invalid.

 

2) If you really want to push argument from authority, many more scientists are supporting the climate change notion than disproving it, including Nobel prize winners. So, in your own words: ''Obviously you are so much smarter than heaps of scientists who are suggesting climate change. So smart, in fact, that you didn't even bother to look up the evidence''.

 

So your argument is double invalid.

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

"Isn't it interesting that the climate change sharia has taken over the term "denier," "

Possibly less interesting than your decision to (mis)use the word "Sharia" when you say this.

"Simply adding water vapor to the Keeling Curve puts carbon dioxide as a flat line at the bottom."

No.

Whatever graph scale you put it on, the numbers are still real.

 

["The numbers are still real." Wow. Deep science, that. You ARE aware that slopes are dependent on the construction of the graph, are you not?]

 

 

But why just add the water vapour?

Why not add the oxygen and nitrogen too

 

[And THIS is a "science forum"? You don't seem to realize that oxygen and nitrogen are NOT greenhouse gases. I clearly stated that water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas. And here you trot in two irrelevant gases as if you are adding information, when in fact you do precisely the opposite.}

 

Were you concerned that such obvious manipulation couldn't be overlooked?

People would notice that you are adding apples to oranges; it's not legitimate arithmetic.

 

[Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas with an IR spectrum extremely similar to that of water vapor. Didn't you even know that? Look them both up. If you can't or don't know how, I will go to the trouble, though this forum makes adding images unnecessarily difficult.]

There isn't any "bad science " in the first couple of posts, so there's no way that a comment on the first 2 posts could be a commentary on "bad science"

 

Incidentally, the OP might want to take a quick look at the reputation points of the posters here to get some sense of the quality of the previous contributions from contributors on this site

.

 

 

Ah "reputation points." Color me impressed. Leftists patting Leftists on the back for their co-brilliance.

 

Fallacy of the Argument From Authority, or as one of your co-Leftists said, "bulshit" (sic).

 

This is your second strike because:

 

1) You already mentioned how you shouldn't accept argument from authority so the 97% (or whatever) of scientists who agree on climate change means nothing and then you go on to mention that the argument is correct because a Nobel Laureate is saying so. Your argument is invalid.

 

2) If you really want to push argument from authority, many more scientists are supporting the climate change notion than disproving it, including Nobel prize winners. So, in your own words: ''Obviously you are so much smarter than heaps of scientists who are suggesting climate change. So smart, in fact, that you didn't even bother to look up the evidence''.

 

So your argument is double invalid.

 

I purposely followed your name to the nearest thread dealing with science to "learn" from your great and exceeding wisdom.

 

What a great disappointment.

 

Let me help you out, and explain some elementary points of debate and discourse. NOWHERE did I say "you shouldn't accept argument from authority."

The point IS that YOU presume arguments from authorities are infallible. That clearly does not follow. YOUR SIDE claims that the 97% could not POSSIBLY be wrong. Absurd. Ivar Giaever provides one reason after another after another as to why he personally rejects the climate change hoax, as characterized by no less than an insider at the UN Climate Change Panel.

 

There was also a letter signed by 49 former NASA officials expressing their disapproval of the climate change hoax as promulgated by NASA at a cost of countless billions of tax dollars.

 

As to my argument being "double invalid," the "heaps of scientists" you cite are afraid of being blacklisted by their colleagues, as you people are so anxious to do to me here. Dissenters are ostracized, prevented from getting tenure, denied promotions, and often fired. This isn't "science."

It is greed and avarice and pride and politics, pure and simple. Pretending that *scientists* are sanctimonious and above pettiness is laughable.

 

Ultimately each individual, each THINKING individual, should decide which argument he finds more persuasive, large numbers claiming anthropogenic global warming, or smaller numbers, presenting very compelling evidence that fractions of a degree, on a narrow graph, should move Americans to spend trillions more just in case.

 

Fractions of an inch in sea level change are insignificant compared to the 7 to 40 foot tidal differences.

1.36 ppmv annual atmospheric carbon dioxide increase, compared to ~15,500 ppmv total of just TWO greenhouse gases is even more insignificant. I have no axe to grind, no fear of being ostracized from a university faculty or this pre-eminent forum of "reputable" Leftist/atheists.

 

One of your "reputable" friends here queried why I did not add oxygen and nitrogen to the Keeling Curve which I modified earlier on this thread. Let me explain yet again, because obviously you people are desperately in need of a science lesson.

 

Oxygen and nitrogen are NOT greenhouse gases. Water vapor, on the other hand, IS.

 

Reputable PhD's excused.

 

 

https://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf

Edited July 11, 2017 by GeniusIsDisruptive

[Lord Antares]

 

Let me help you out, and explain some elementary points of debate and discourse. NOWHERE did I say "you shouldn't accept argument from authority."

The point IS that YOU presume arguments from authorities are infallible. That clearly does not follow. YOUR SIDE claims that the 97% could not POSSIBLY be wrong.

 

I see that your reading comprehension is completely lacking. Not only did you not understand what I said, I was saying the exact opposite of that. I was saying that argument from authority is invalid, yet you used it. You were saying ''it doesn't matter that 97% agree on climate change, they can be wrong'' and then you use the argument from authority that a Nobel Lereuate claims climate change is false and that I cannot disprove him because I'm dumber than him. This is contradictory, logically inconsistent and it just makes no sense.

 

 

As to my argument being "double invalid," the "heaps of scientists" you cite are afraid of being blacklisted by their colleagues, as you people are so anxious to do to me here.

 

Ah, yes. This seems to be a common theme among conspiracy theoretists and crackpots like you. Make something up and regard it as true for the rest of your life without evidence. Yes, the NASA is trying to hoax everyone (for some reason). Bush did 9/11, aliens built the pyramids, the world is controlled by the illuminati etc etc. I bet you believe in all of these.

Since you seem to be unaware, science does not accepts things which are unproven and just wild guesses.

 

This is especially applicable to you since you seem to be a devout Christian. Preaching christianity and teaching science is a contradiction. You basically don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

And your attempt at disproving evolution is laughable. Evolution is one of the most well tested and intensively proven theories of all time, yet you come in with some feeble triviality which you would easily disprove if you had any knowledge in science whatsoever.

[swansont]

 

[YOU ERR GRIEVOUSLY AND REPEATEDLY, AS IF "NEW" WATER VAPOR BEHAVES SOMEHOW DIFFERENTLY FROM "OLD WATER VAPOR."

 

HERE IS SCIENCE: THEY DON'T. WATER IS WATER. 1.5% DOESN'T need TO INCREASE. THE 15,500 PPM VALUE FOR TWO GREENHOUSE GASES SHOWS HOW TRIVIAL 1.36 PPM ANNUAL INCREASE REALLY IS.]

 

 

My point was precisely the opposite of what you say here.

 

Water is the same. It acts the same, and there's the same amount of it. Global warming is about CHANGES in the amount of greenhouse gases. (That thing I said about how water vapor well not double, which you either did not read or did not comprehend) So, let's say that water vapor stays constant. Then we can ignore it in our analysis, because we are only interested in quantities that change.

 

In an absolute sense, water vapor traps a lot of heat. But we already knew this, because our planet is not a frozen ball, as it would be with no greenhouse effect. Water vapor and other contributors raise the earth's temperature by tens of degrees above what it would otherwise be, based on simple absorption and radiation. Water vapor being "big" is already taken into account in getting our baseline temperature.

 

But if water vapor doesn't change, it's not going to change the temperature.

 

CO2 is a small contributor, but since the sun dumps more than a kilowatt of power per square meter onto the earth, even a small effect that changes can have a large net effect. The temperature would increase by around a degree per watt, which is less than 0.1% of the solar input. So a small effect can have a large result, if we double it. Plus, it gets amplified, since a rising temperature will increase the absolute amount of water in the atmosphere (among other effects), as I already noted. And you already know water is a big greenhouse gas. It's just that it's accounted for in feedback effects, rather than direct effects, for warming calculations.

[Arete]

There seems to be this misnomer that "scientific consensus" is a bunch of lab coated white dudes sitting around in an ivory tower, sipping brandy and all agreeing on something.

 

What it means (at least to me) is that a majority of independent, peer reviewed, data based hypothesis tests, approaching an issue from a variety of angles using a variety of different datasets and analytical approaches all reject the same null hypothesis and converge on supporting the same test hypothesis. It has nothing to do with opinion at all - it has to do with what multiple, independent data sources and analytical approaches demonstrate. In the case of the test hypothesis: "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are altering the thermal dynamics of the atmospheres and subsequently changing global climate patterns", as of 2012, an analysis of 13,950 peer reviewed articles demonstrating that 99.83% of these articles supported this test hypothesis. Other studies analyzing peer reviewed literature find similar results.

 

This is extraordinarily strong support for a given test hypothesis. We can therefore conclude, grand conspiracy theories aside, that the empirical data strongly supports the mainstream scientific conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is indeed, real.

[Manticore]

Someone once said that the word "science" in the name of a subject (domestic science, computer science etc.) is a good indication that the subject is in no way a science.

I would like to suggest that, in the same way, anyone who uses the word "genius" in their username ..................

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

 

Well, that tells me how much you care abut science and how seriously I am going to take you. No water in the atmosphere? And yet you say there's 15,000 ppm. You can't even keep your arguments straight.

 

YOU said "No water in the atmosphere." I did not. It is all to common for you Leftists to put your words into other people's mouths and then ridicule THEM for what YOU said.

 

Let me give you a sorely needed science lesson, swansont.

 

One can easily evacuate a container and then inject a quantity of water into what was just a vacuum. Do you know what will happen?

I'll tell you because obviously you don't know. Water will evaporate, AND there is no "atmosphere" to "hold it."

 

Water vapor is a gas. Nitrogen is a gas. Nitrogen doesn't "hold" oxygen or water vapor.

 

Now get down off your high horse.

Someone once said that the word "science" in the name of a subject (domestic science, computer science etc.) is a good indication that the subject is in no way a science.

I would like to suggest that, in the same way, anyone who uses the word "genius" in their username ..................

 

My, how truly "brilliant" of you, Manticore.

 

Likewise this forum has nothing to do with "science" and you are not a "man."

 

Why don't you try positing some science, for a change. You DO know how, don't you?

 

[That exchange didn't work out quite the way you planned, did it "Man(sic)ticore".]

There seems to be this misnomer that "scientific consensus" is a bunch of lab coated white dudes sitting around in an ivory tower, sipping brandy and all agreeing on something.

 

 

This is extraordinarily strong support for a given test hypothesis. We can therefore conclude, grand conspiracy theories aside, that the empirical data strongly supports the mainstream scientific conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is indeed, real.

 

 

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Edited July 11, 2017 by GeniusIsDisruptive

[swansont]

YOU said "No water in the atmosphere." I did not. It is all to common for you Leftists to put your words into other people's mouths and then ridicule THEM for what YOU said.

I asked a question, because you said 'THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT "HOLD" WATER' which is is a laughable statement, and sounds a lot like you are saying there is no water in the atmosphere.

 

Let me give you a sorely needed science lesson, swansont.

 

Oh, please do.

 

One can easily evacuate a container and then inject a quantity of water into what was just a vacuum. Do you know what will happen?

I'll tell you because obviously you don't know. Water will evaporate, AND there is no "atmosphere" to "hold it."

And the relevance of this is...what, exactly? Is our atmosphere a vacuum?

 

Pump as much water in as you can/want. What will the pressure of this container be? (and see below)

 

Water vapor is a gas. Nitrogen is a gas. Nitrogen doesn't "hold" oxygen or water vapor.

 

Now get down off your high horse.

Is there, or is there not, a limit to how much water vapor you will find in the atmosphere? I mean, big picture here. This is the salient point. I have a volume of air, at 20 ºC and 1 atmosphere of pressure. Can I get an arbitrary amount of water vapor in that volume? (Let's say it's 22.4 liters, if you need a number)